Civil versus criminal medical negligence: prior expert-opinion rule confined to criminal prosecutions, and consumer complaint dismissal stood.

The earlier rule in Jacob Mathew was limited to criminal prosecution of medical professionals for negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and it did not govern consumer complaints alleging civil negligence. The distinction between civil and criminal negligence was reaffirmed, with criminal liability requiring a much higher degree of negligence. V. Kishan Rao was held to have correctly treated Martin F. D'Souza as per incuriam because its broader approach conflicted with Jacob Mathew. As the National Commission relied on that later position, no legal error was found in its dismissal of the revision, and interference was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier rule requiring prior expert opinion before proceeding against doctors in a consumer complaint could be treated as governing law, and whether the dismissal of the revision by the National Commission warranted interference.

Analysis: The scope of the earlier decision in Jacob Mathew was confined to criminal prosecution of medical professionals for negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The distinction between civil negligence and criminal negligence was emphasised, and the requirement of a much higher degree of negligence for criminal liability was reaffirmed. The later decision in V. Kishan Rao correctly treated Martin F. D'Souza as per incuriam because its broader approach was inconsistent with the law stated in Jacob Mathew. Since the National Commission had relied on that later law, its conclusion did not suffer from legal error.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the impugned order required no interference.

---