Criminal medical negligence requires gross fault, while civil liability may arise from breach of ordinary medical care standards.

Gross medical negligence of a very high degree is required for criminal liability under Section 304A IPC, and a mere error of judgment or deviation from accepted practice is insufficient; on the facts, the respondents could not be shown with the certainty needed for criminal culpability, so no conviction followed. Civil liability was assessed on the ordinary standard of medical care, and the Court found that the treatment, monitoring, and supportive care fell below the standard expected of reasonably competent medical professionals, establishing medical negligence and deficiency in service. The matter was remitted to the consumer forum for assessment of compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondents' conduct amounted to criminal negligence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) whether the respondents and the hospital were liable in civil law for medical negligence and deficiency in service, and what relief should follow.

Issue (i): whether the respondents' conduct amounted to criminal negligence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The Court held that medical negligence in criminal law must be of a gross or very high degree and that a mere error of judgment or deviation from accepted practice is insufficient. Although the treatment given to the patient was found negligent in several respects, the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, questions of diagnosis and treatment protocol, and overlapping acts by multiple doctors and the hospital. In that setting, the Court concluded that it was not possible to attribute the requisite criminal mens rea or identify individual criminal culpability with the certainty needed for conviction under Section 304A.

Conclusion: The respondents were not held guilty of an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (ii): whether the respondents and the hospital were liable in civil law for medical negligence and deficiency in service, and what relief should follow.

Analysis: The Court found that the treatment fell below the standard expected of reasonably competent medical professionals. It held that high-dose long-acting steroid therapy was administered without proper adherence to accepted protocol, that supportive care and monitoring were not adequately provided, and that the hospital and treating doctors failed to exercise due care. The Court distinguished civil liability from criminal liability, applied the ordinary standards of medical negligence, and held that the complainant had established negligence for purposes of compensation. As the record was insufficient for final quantification, the matter required remand to the consumer forum for determination of damages.

Conclusion: Civil negligence and deficiency in service were established, and the matter was remitted for assessment of compensation.

Final Conclusion: The criminal challenge failed, but the civil claim survived on negligence principles, warranting a remand limited to compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: In medical negligence cases, criminal liability arises only on proof of gross negligence of a very high degree with clear individual culpability, whereas civil liability may be attracted on proof of breach of the ordinary standard of care and accepted treatment protocol.

---