Statutory framework for prosecution in criminal medical negligence cases- SC to hear plea flagging '20-year-long inaction'
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Centre and all State Governments to frame statutory rules for prosecuting cases of criminal medical negligence.
A direction in this regard was mandated by the Supreme Court nearly two decades ago in the landmark Jacob Mathew judgment. However, the PIL flagged a "20-year-long inaction" by the authorities despite directions issued by the Supreme Court on August 5, 2005, requiring the Union and state governments to frame statutory rules or executive instructions governing the prosecution of doctors in criminal negligence cases, IANS has reported.
Supreme Court's Earlier Directions:
It has been more than 17 years since the Supreme Court, for the first time in the Jacob Mathew case in 2005, directed the Centre to frame statutory rules in consultation with the then medical education regulator Medical Council of India (MCI), to deal with medical negligence cases, as it impacts both doctors and patients.
The Apex Court had also framed some guidelines in the Jacob Mathew case as a stopgap arrangement. According to these guidelines, the investigating officer should, before proceeding against a doctor accused of a rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion. The opinion should preferably be from a doctor in government service and qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion, according to the guidelines.
However, due to the absence of statutory rules to date, the investigating officers lack knowledge about whom to approach to get in touch with the State Medical Councils. The MCI passed a resolution for the first time on October 31, 2017, proposing to the government to constitute medical boards with doctors specialising in respective fields of medicine. When the National Medical Commission (NMC) replaced the MCI, it again wrote to the Union Health Ministry on September 29, 2021, suggesting the constitution, terms of members, and functioning of such medical boards at district and state levels.
Back in 2023, the Union Ministry, while responding to an RTI query, revealed that the Ministry had taken up for consideration the healthcare sector's long-standing demand to frame guidelines for determining medical negligence cases.
What did the PIL say?
Terming the delay “disheartening and disappointing”, the plea stated that “the nation has since been waiting for more than 20 years” for the mandatory rules, which “are yet to be framed and notified even after two decades of the Jacob Mathew judgment” .
It also questioned the allegedly biased inquiry system, where allegations of medical negligence are assessed by doctor-dominated committees. The PIL stated, "In the absence of Statutory Rules or Executive Instructions as required to be framed in compliance of Jacob Mathew judgement and under the prevailing system of the Inquiry Committees comprising of mostly the doctors only, the medical inquiry reports, in many cases, do not happen to be unbiased."
Further, it added that "several innocent human beings become victim of torturous, agonising, miserable, ignoble and often butchering deaths in hospitals each year in our country, caused due to gross medical negligence."
The petition stated that patients' families are left "absolutely helpless", as "there remains hardly any hope of justice for the victims of gross medical negligence in the situation of ‘doctors judging doctors’ obviously favouring their fraternity". It also referred to an RTI reply from the National Medical Commission (NMC), confirming that “no such guidelines have been framed” and that the process “is under process”.
Further, the petition relied on the 73rd Parliamentary Standing Committee Report (2013), which recorded that medical professionals probing negligence cases are “very lenient towards their colleagues” and that “none of them is willing to testify another doctor as negligent”, resulting in “almost negligible” prosecution rates.
NCRB data, the petition said, records only “astonishing and unbelievable” 1,019 cases of death due to medical negligence over six years in a country of over 1.4 billion people.
Urging immediate intervention, the petition, filed through advocate Devansh Srivastava, contended that “every human life is precious” and that preventable deaths inside hospitals “cannot be brushed aside merely as disciplinary issues”.
The PIL prayed that the Supreme Court issue time-bound directions to ensure the immediate framing and notification of the mandatory rules as directed in the Jacob Mathew judgment; establish multi-stakeholder inquiry panels, including retired judges, civil society members, patient representatives, NHRC nominees, and independent experts, rather than committees comprised solely of doctors; and introduce accountability mechanisms so that cases of gross medical negligence leading to death are investigated impartially and prosecuted effectively.
The PIL said that such reforms are essential to uphold Article 21 of the Constitution, contending that the right to life necessarily includes the right to fair and unbiased investigation into deaths caused by criminal medical negligence. As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta will take up the matter for hearing on Monday (December 1).
