https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157361 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. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2024 15:22:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157361 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157361