https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463754 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. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Sep 2025 17:54:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463754 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463754