Deviating from prescribed test by doctor is negligence- HC refuses to quash criminal case against Lab Technician

Thiruvananthapuram: Declining to quash a criminal case against a lab technician for allegedly conducting an unprescribed test on a patient, the Kerala High Court ruled the action of performing a test using an alternative method that differed from the doctor’s prescribed test is considered as 'Gross Negligence'. The court said that it could have endangered the life of the patient. 

While the lab technician, the petitioner in this case alleged that the alternative test did not constitute an act of negligence under Section 336, the court ruled that rash or negligent actions that endanger human life or safety attract liability under Section 336 of the IPC. Further, it noted that if the doctor had not detected the issue and conducted the correct test, it could have endangered the patient’s life, thereby justifying the charge.

Also read- Patient dies during treatment at GTB Hospital, kin alleges negligence

Highlighting that lab technicians should either conduct the exact test ordered or direct patients to a lab that can perform it, the court deemed it as gross negligence as the petitioner performed the Elisa Test using the Particle Gel Immunoassay method instead of the prescribed Hit Antibody Test.

"The technician had a duty to either conduct the exact test prescribed or refer the patient to another facility if the test was unavailable. The act of deviating from the prescribed test cannot be considered anything other than negligence,” noted the bench, reports Livelaw.

The case involved a technician who decided to use the Elisa Test with Particle Gel Immunoassay instead of the doctor-ordered Hit Antibody Test. Following the test, the patient's son filed a case under Section 336 of the IPC (rash or negligent acts endangering human life) against the lab technician. 

Aggrieved, the lab technician, approached the high court to quash the criminal case against him. He argued that conducting the Elisa Test using the Particle Gel Immunoassay method instead of the prescribed test did not constitute an act of negligence under Section 336, especially since the doctor eventually performed the correct test and provided treatment.

However, the Public Prosecutor contended that the alternative test gave a negative result for the complainant's mother, potentially misguiding treatment. He said that it could have been fatal for the patient. Fortunately, the doctor identified the issue, performed the correct test, and initiated appropriate treatment.

Observing that the patient avoided untimely harm which is irrelevant in this case, the court dismissed the petition to quash the criminal proceedings as the negligent act itself sufficed to attract criminal liability under Section 336.

Also read- Doctor, Nurse booked over cannula insertion pricks, as patient alleges they were drunk