Court Upholds that Mere Discrepancies in Diagnostic Reports Do Not Constitute Criminal Negligence
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court, presided over by Justice N. Tukaramji, has quashed the criminal proceedings against four employees of a diagnostic centre accused of medical negligence. The case, stemming from a discrepancy between rapid screening and confirmatory diagnostic tests, was deemed insufficient to attract criminal liability under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case originated when the complainant, advised to undergo a surgical profile before hernia surgery, received a reactive result on an HBsAg rapid test conducted by the Vijaya Diagnostic Centre, causing her severe mental distress. However, subsequent tests, including a more specific CMIA method, returned non-reactive results, revealing discrepancies in the initial report.
The prosecution alleged that the issuance of the initial reactive report without confirmation by a second method constituted negligence that endangered the complainant's life. However, the court found that the rapid HBsAg tests are inherently susceptible to false positives and that such discrepancies do not automatically translate into criminal negligence.
The court highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Jacob Mathew case, emphasizing that criminal liability for medical negligence requires gross negligence or recklessness, supported by independent expert medical opinion. The court noted that the investigation failed to demonstrate such gross negligence or recklessness on the part of the accused.
Furthermore, the court observed that the criminal liability is personal and cannot be attributed merely based on managerial or supervisory positions. The lack of specific allegations demonstrating the individual culpability of the accused led to the conclusion that the prosecution could not be sustained.
In light of these findings, the court quashed the proceedings against the accused, underscoring that the matter may warrant civil action but does not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution. The decision reinforces the need for careful consideration before initiating criminal proceedings in cases of alleged medical negligence, balancing the need to address deficiencies in medical services with the protection of medical professionals from indiscriminate prosecution.
Bottom Line :
Criminal liability for medical negligence requires proof of gross negligence or recklessness. Mere discrepancies in diagnostic reports or errors in judgment do not automatically constitute criminal negligence under Section 336 IPC.
Statutory provision(s): Section 336 IPC, Section 482 CrPC
Manisha Singh v. State of Telangana, (Telangana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2964222
