Criminal medical negligence requires gross negligence, not a mere poor outcome or disputed treatment choice, and prosecution was quashed.

Criminal liability for medical negligence under Section 304A IPC requires gross negligence or recklessness, not merely an unfortunate result, a different treatment choice, or an expert dispute. For a doctor, the test is whether the conduct departed from what an ordinarily prudent medical professional would do, judged by accepted medical practice and the skill and care reasonably expected at the relevant time. Res ipsa loquitur was treated as a civil evidentiary rule and not a basis for criminal prosecution. Applying that standard, the allegations did not show the doctor acted, or omitted to act, in a manner no prudent professional would have adopted, and the complaint suggested at most possible hospital-level civil responsibility. The prosecution was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the facts alleged disclosed criminal rashness or negligence so as to sustain prosecution of a doctor under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and whether the legal standard for judging medical negligence in criminal law is different from the standard applicable in civil law.

Analysis: Negligence in civil law was distinguished from criminal negligence on the basis that criminal liability requires a much higher degree of negligence, namely gross negligence or recklessness, together with the requisite mens rea. In the case of a professional, especially a doctor, liability cannot arise merely because a better course of treatment was available, a different opinion existed, or the result was unfortunate; the test is whether the doctor possessed the requisite skill and exercised ordinary competence and reasonable care according to accepted medical practice at the relevant time. The rule of res ipsa loquitur was held to be a rule of evidence confined essentially to civil cases and not a basis for criminal prosecution. Applying these principles, the allegations did not show that the appellant did anything, or failed to do anything, which no ordinarily prudent medical professional would have done in the circumstances, and the complaint at best indicated possible hospital-level civil responsibility arising from non-availability or emptiness of an oxygen cylinder.

Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was not sustainable against the appellant and the proceedings were quashed.

---