In a petition seeking quashment of FIR alleging gross medical negligence by Vasundhara Hospital, Jodhpur and its doctors leading to the death of complainant’s daughter-in-law, an RAS officer, a single-judge bench of Farjand Ali, J., quashed the FIR on not finding any credible evidence of intentional wrongdoing, reckless indifference, or disregard for standard care, especially when an independent expert committee also did not found any lapse warranting further action. “In the modern healthcare ecosystem, no private hospital or its professional staff can reasonably be presumed to operate with a wilful disregard for human life, especially when such conduct would directly undermine their institutional standing, public trust, and economic viability … The risk of professional ruin, economic decline, and eventual institutional collapse acts as a natural deterrent against any willful lapse in the standard of care.” Factual Matrix In the instant matter, criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)1, seeking quashing of FIR registered at Police Station Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur on 25-10-2024, for alleged offences under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The complainant alleged medical negligence in the treatment of his daughter-in-law who was admitted to Vasundhara Hospital for minor uterine fibroid surgery on 05-09-2024. According to the FIR, despite assurances of a simple procedure, the patient was subjected to hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and trans-cervical resection of myoma without adequate diagnostic work-up or pre-operative tests such as INR. The complainant contended that post-operatively, the patient’s condition deteriorated, she became unconscious and was moved to a general ward without critical monitoring. Later, she was shifted to Medipulse Hospital, where she was declared brain dead and eventually passed away. Moot Point Whether the facts disclose a prima facie criminal offence under Section 105 BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) or reflect a case of medical negligence? Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed in view of the medical nature of allegations? Whether vicarious criminal liability could be fastened on the petitioners not directly involved in the clinical decision-making? Parties’ Contentions The petitioners (surgeons and anaesthetists involved in the operation) contended that the FIR is based on misconstrued facts and amounts to abuse of the process of law. It was argued that the incident, if at all, falls under the civil domain of medical negligence and lacks the element of mens rea necessary to invoke Section 105 of the BNS. It was also emphasised that medical complications alone, without gross recklessness, do not constitute criminal liability. However, the State-respondents argued that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case warranting investigation. It was contended that the nature of the allegations involved serious lapses in medical care leading to death, which justifies continuation of proceedings. Further, the complainant reiterated the failure of the doctors to perform requisite diagnostic protocols before surgery, leading to fatal consequences. Court’s Observation The Court stated that the foundational principle in such matters is the Bolam Test as laid down in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 WLR 582, which shields doctors from liability if the treatment conforms to practices accepted by a responsible body of medical professionals. The Court relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, where it was held that mere error in judgment or simple negligence is not sufficient for criminal prosecution and a credible opinion from an independent medical board or expert must form the basis before initiating proceedings. The Court stated that the law requires that criminal liability for medical negligence arise only where there is gross dereliction of duty or reckless conduct. The Court noted that the State-Level Medical Expert Committee dated 21-09-2024, constituted under the Directorate of Medical Education, found no prima facie evidence of culpable medical negligence and treatment was in accordance with acceptable clinical practices. The Committee stated that complications like sepsis and MODS can arise even with proper care. It was stated that absence of post-mortem histopathology and incomplete records from the referral hospital in Ahmedabad made it impossible to conclusively determine cause of death. The Court noted that the District-Level Committee Report, dated 19-09-2024, stated that there is no evidence of willful negligence, noted discrepancies between attendant and hospital staff statements and also noted omission of a CT Brain scan as recommended by a neurologist but the same did not establish criminal intent or gross dereliction. The Court, however, cautioned against a hasty criminal prosecution in every case of medical mishap and stated that “threshold for initiating criminal proceedings against medical professionals is not satisfied merely by alleging procedural lapses or adverse consequences, but requires demonstrable conduct that falls palpably outside the realm of accepted medical standards.” The Court further noted that the “criminal law should not be used as a tool to pressurize or harass medical professionals where the elements of crime are not made out.” The Court stressed that private hospitals’ survival is dependent on public trust and good outcomes, making it irrational to assume malafide intent without cogent evidence. The Court stated that “it is inconceivable that a licensed and qualified medical professional… would intentionally pursue a line of treatment with the objective of endangering human life.” The Court held that the treating doctors acted within their clinical discretion during an evolving emergency and cannot be expected to operate with retrospective perfection. As for vicarious liability, the Court held that no direct or indirect evidence showed involvement of other petitioners in the surgical decisions. The Court further stated that the doctrine of ‘respondeat superior’ does not apply criminally unless there is authorisation, wilful negligence, or supervisory failure, none of which are proven in present case....
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/16/doctors-have-no-incentive-to-willfully-endanger-life-in-trust-driven-healthcare-ecosystem-rajasthan-high-court-quashes-fir-alleging-medical-negligence-scc-times/