SC quashes culpable murder prices slapped on physician over telephone prescription
The Supreme Court docket has quashed culpable murder prices towards a physician whose telephonic instruction to a nurse for administering an injection allegedly led to the demise of a affected person. A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta mentioned that whereas the physician could also be held accountable for negligence, the cost ought to be below Part 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (inflicting demise by negligence) moderately than the graver Part 304 Half I of IPC (culpable murder not amounting to homicide).
Part 304 Half I carries a most sentence of 10 years. Part 304A is punishable by as much as two years in jail.
The case originated from an incident on February 21, 2013, when a lady visited a personal nursing dwelling at Thiruvallur in Tamil Nadu with complaints of headache, vomiting, giddiness, and fever. She was reportedly attended to by a nurse, who administered injections following a telephonic dialog with the physician in query. Shortly thereafter, the affected person turned semi-conscious and was referred to a authorities hospital, the place she was declared useless, in keeping with the prosecution. The autopsy examination report attributed her demise to an acute hypersensitive drug response.
After her husband lodged a criticism, the police registered a case below Part 304 Half I of IPC towards the physician and a judicial Justice of the Peace took cognisance of the case, summoning the physician as an accused. The physician challenged this order earlier than the Madras excessive courtroom, which, by an order dated August 11, 2021, declined to quash the proceedings. The excessive courtroom mentioned that there was prima facie materials to proceed below Part 304 Half I of IPC, provided that the physician was not current when the affected person was admitted and had instructed the nurse over the telephone to manage injections. The nurse acted on these directions, which, in keeping with the prosecution, straight led to the lady’s demise.
The Supreme Court docket, whereas listening to the physician’s attraction, relied on its 2005 judgment within the Jacob Mathew case, which delineates the edge for legal legal responsibility in medical negligence instances. The bench agreed with the appellant’s argument that an act of alleged medical negligence, even when leading to demise, doesn’t robotically represent culpable murder until there’s intent or data that demise could be a possible consequence.
“Contemplating the details and circumstances of this case, we’re of the view that the registration of the FIR below Part 304 Half I of IPC and the next submission of police report below Part 173(2) of CrPC additionally below Part 304 Half I IPC can’t be sustained,” the bench mentioned in its February 12 judgment, launched on Thursday.
The courtroom directed that the accusation below Part 304 Half I of IPC be waived, and the case be proceeded with below Part 304A of IPC. The periods decide was instructed to transmit the data to a reliable Justice of the Peace for trial below the suitable part to find out the diploma of legal negligence, if any.
This judgment reaffirms the judicial precedent that legal legal responsibility for medical negligence ought to be invoked solely in instances of gross recklessness or deliberate intent.
The Bolam Check — a normal that has lengthy been recognised in medical negligence instances, has been persistently strengthened by the Supreme Court docket of India. Originating from the 1957 English case Bolam Vs Friern Hospital Administration Committee, this take a look at states that docs usually are not negligent in the event that they act in accordance with a apply accepted by a accountable physique of medical professionals.
Within the Indian context, the Supreme Court docket endorsed the Bolam Check within the Jacob Mathews case, holding that provided that a physician lacks requisite abilities or fails to train cheap competence ought to legal responsibility be imposed. By a judgment in October final 12 months, the courtroom emphasised that medical professionals can’t be held responsible for negligence solely as a result of surgical procedure or remedy doesn’t produce the anticipated outcomes. It mentioned the culpability of docs should stem from clear proof pointing to a deviation from accepted medical practices.
