Hospital directors not criminally liable solely for their position: Delhi Court quashes summoning order in patient death case

New Delhi: Setting aside a trial court's summoning order to two corporate hospital directors for facing trial for alleged culpable homicide and criminal conspiracy in connection with the death of a patient, an Additional Sessions Court clarified that company directors are not to face criminal liability solely because of their position.

Relying on judicial precedent set by the Supreme Court, Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Rastogi of Karkardooma Courts observed, "the law in the nutshell as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that vicarious liability viz a viz criminal acts is a strict concept and can be attracted in only two situations. Firstly, when the statute itself provides so. In other words when a specific legal fiction is created which provides for such liability. For eg. Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act or the provisions in Factories Act which provide for the liability of the “occupier” of the factory in certain circumstances. Secondly, when an individual is to be made an accused on behalf of the company for the acts of the Company there have to be specific allegations against him and cogent evidence for his involvement in the alleged act. Moreover, in both the scenarios, the Company also has to be made an accused."

This observation was made by the court while it allowed the criminal revision petitions filed by two doctors who had challenged the summoning order issued against them in March 2025 by an additional chief judicial magistrate.

Case Background: 

The incident in question took place in 2011 when a complaint was filed over the death of a patient at the hospital where one of the revisionist doctors was a director. The other doctor was allegedly not the director at that time.

According to the complaint, the patient was allegedly forcibly admitted to the said hospital and was administered an injection, which resulted in her death. The complaint mentioned that it was not a case of medical negligence but a case of a pre-designed conspiracy which resulted in the death of the deceased. The allegations were made regarding the tampering of hospital records, lack of a consent form, etc.

Based on the complaint, the revisionist-doctors were issued a summoning order by the trial court for the offence punishable under section 304 (culpable homicide) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

Challenging this, the doctors approached the Sessions Court. The counsel for the doctors argued that they had nothing to do with the alleged offence as they were merely a director (as an entrepreneur) of the said hospital. Further, it was argued that it is trite of law that in a medical negligence or even offences under IPC, there is a requirement of mens rea, which is completely missing in the case as the doctors had no connection to the alleged surgery in question.

Further, it was submitted that the principle of vicarious liability cannot be extended in such a case. The counsel argued that in case of medical negligence, an inquiry has to be conducted by a team of doctors, which was conducted in this case, and the report of the Delhi Medical Council clearly mentioned that “no medical negligence can be attributed on the part of the doctors of *** Hospital, in the treatment administered to the complainant’s wife *** at *** Hospital”. 

Observations by Court: 

While considering the matter, the Sessions Court discussed the law regarding summoning and the implications of the same. For this, the bench referred to Supreme Court order in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, and noted, "it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that before passing a summoning order which evidently sets in motion the criminal law against the Accused persons, an application of mind and reasoning based on the said application of mind is sine qua non. The order must reflect the said application of mind and cannot be cryptic."

Noting that the doctors were issued the summoning order only because of their positions as directors, the Court observed, "It appears that the summoning order has been passed against them only because of their capacity as Directors of the Company as no further role has been attributed to them in the entire summoning order. In other words, the principle of vicarious liability for the acts of the Company has been applied to the Revisionists. Hence, before moving further, it is very necessary to discuss the law occupying the field which has been elaborately discussed and settled in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI."

Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in several cases, the court clarified in which situations vicarious liability for criminal acts can be attracted.

"Applying the above to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed at the outset that while the summoning order has been passed against the Revisionists by virtue of them being directors of the Company, the holding company i.e. *** Healthcare has not been made an accused. Moreover, in the summoning order, no discussion whatsoever has been provided as to their role in the alleged act which warrants their summoning or as to how their involvement can be prima facie established. The Ld. Trial Court has merely mentioned that the statement of the Complainant and other witnesses, the evidences placed on record, the inquiry report and order of DMC, prima facie show that the Accused persons have committed offence punishable under Section 304/120-B IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder and criminal conspiracy. The same includes the name of Revisionists at Sl. No. 4 and 5," noted the bench.

"In this connection, it is observed that firstly the relevant provision applicable here does not provide for vicarious liability. In such circumstances, it was imperative for the Ld. Trial Court to provide reasoning so as to demonstrate a clear application of mind as to how the Revisionists were involved in the alleged act so as to warrant their summoning and what was the exact role played by them in the entire alleged act. Even if the charge made out against them is of conspiracy, then also the said conspiracy cannot be unilaterally assumed and summoning cannot be done in a mechanical manner as has been done by the Ld. Trial Court," held the bench.

"The perusal of Pre-summoning evidence reveals that not even a single allegation has been made against the revisionists and the entire set of allegations are directed against the doctors at *** Hospital. The Revisionists were not even made an accused by the Complainant in the Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent during the arguments also very fairly admitted that there are no specific allegations against the Revisionists," it further noted.

In this connection, the bench relied on the observations on the Supreme Court order in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI and concluded that the summoning order is "manifestly perverse".

Granting relief to the doctors, the bench orderded, "Based on the above, it is the considered opinion of this Court that the order of the Ld. Trial Court vide which the Revisionists have been summoned for offences under Section 304/120-B suffers from clear non application of mind and is manifestly perverse. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the Revision stands allowed."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/15/hospital-directors-summonig-order-359730.pdf

Also Read: Apollo Hospital, surgeon, anaesthetist held liable for patient death post spinal surgery, slapped Rs 30 Lakh compensation