What Is Considered Medical Negligence? Meaning, Examples and Legal Position

Key Takeaways

• Medical negligence in India occurs when a doctor, hospital or healthcare professional fails to exercise the reasonable degree of skill and care expected in the circumstances, and that failure causes harm to the patient.
• Three basic elements generally have to be established: a duty of care, breach of that duty and resulting injury or damage.
• An unsuccessful treatment, unexpected complication, accident or mere error of judgment does not automatically amount to medical negligence.
• A doctor is generally protected when treatment follows a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals and reasonable skill and care have been exercised.
• Wrong medication, avoidable delay in treatment, negligent surgery, failure to conduct necessary tests, inadequate monitoring and treatment without valid consent may amount to medical negligence depending on the facts.
• Civil medical negligence and criminal medical negligence are different. Criminal liability requires negligence of a much higher or gross degree.
• Hospitals may also be held responsible for deficiencies in institutional care, including failures involving staff, equipment, monitoring, hygiene, administration or other hospital services.

What Is Medical Negligence in India?

Medical negligence is the failure of a doctor, hospital or healthcare professional to provide the level of reasonable care and skill expected from a competent medical professional in similar circumstances, resulting in injury or damage to a patient.

In simple terms, a poor medical result alone is not negligence. There must normally be something wrong with the manner in which the medical professional acted or failed to act.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

The Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab explained that a medical practitioner owes duties relating to accepting a case, deciding the appropriate treatment and administering that treatment. The practitioner must bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and exercise a reasonable degree of care.

Medical negligence is essentially a specialised application of the general principles of negligence under the law of torts. However, courts apply the concept carefully because medical treatment involves professional judgment, scientific uncertainty and risks that cannot always be eliminated.

What Are the Essential Elements of Medical Negligence?

For medical negligence to become legally actionable, three fundamental elements generally have to be established.

Duty of Care

There must first be a duty owed by the medical professional or hospital to the patient.

Learn at your own pace with LawBhoomi's recorded law courses.

View Recorded Courses →

Once a doctor accepts responsibility for examining or treating a patient, a professional relationship ordinarily arises. This creates a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care while diagnosing the condition, selecting treatment and administering that treatment.

Hospitals may similarly owe duties relating to nursing care, facilities, equipment, medicines, staff, infection control and other aspects of institutional treatment.

Breach of Duty

The second requirement is a breach of the required standard of care.

A breach occurs when the conduct of the doctor or hospital falls below the standard reasonably expected in the circumstances.

It is not enough to prove that another doctor would have followed a different course. The relevant question is whether the treatment actually provided was one that a reasonably competent medical professional could have adopted.

Resulting Damage

Negligence becomes actionable when the breach causes injury or damage.

Therefore, even where some lapse occurred, liability generally requires a connection between that lapse and the patient’s injury, deterioration, additional medical expenses, disability, death or other recognised damage.

The Supreme Court in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre reiterated that the essential components of negligence are duty, breach and resulting damage.

Find the latest legal internship opportunities, updated daily.

Find Internships →

These requirements are also connected with the broader concepts and essentials of tortious liability.

What Standard of Care Is Expected from a Doctor?

Indian law does not expect every doctor to possess the highest possible degree of expertise.

A medical practitioner is expected to possess and exercise a reasonable degree of skill, knowledge and care appropriate to the profession and the circumstances.

In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court made it clear that the law does not require either the highest degree of professional competence or tolerate an unreasonably low standard. What is required is reasonable competence.

Similarly, in Kusum Sharma, the Court held that a medical professional would ordinarily be liable only where the conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in that particular field.

Therefore, the performance of a junior general practitioner cannot always be judged according to the same specialised standards applicable to an experienced specialist performing an advanced medical procedure.

The surrounding circumstances are important.

What Is the Bolam Test in Medical Negligence?

The Bolam test has traditionally played an important role in Indian medical negligence law.

Broadly, the test asks whether the medical professional acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals skilled in that particular field.

Learn at your own pace with LawBhoomi's recorded law courses.

View Recorded Courses →

If a doctor follows a recognised and acceptable medical practice, negligence is not established merely because another respectable group of doctors might have preferred a different procedure.

The Supreme Court adopted and discussed this approach extensively in Jacob Mathew.

However, professional opinion does not operate as an automatic defence to clearly unreasonable conduct. Courts examine the medical evidence, circumstances and accepted professional standards before determining whether the treatment was legally reasonable.

What Acts Can Be Considered Medical Negligence?

There is no closed list of acts that automatically amount to medical negligence. Liability depends upon the facts of each case.

Some situations that may amount to negligence include the following.

Failure to Properly Diagnose a Medical Condition

An incorrect diagnosis is not automatically negligent.

Medical conditions can present similar symptoms, and reasonable doctors may reach different conclusions. However, negligence may arise where the incorrect diagnosis resulted from failure to conduct basic examinations, ignoring significant symptoms, failing to order reasonably necessary tests or disregarding important medical reports.

The issue is therefore not simply whether the diagnosis was wrong, but why it was wrong.

Unreasonable Delay in Diagnosis or Treatment

Delay may constitute medical negligence where a reasonably competent medical professional should have recognised the need for urgent diagnosis, referral, surgery or treatment.

For example, ignoring clear signs of a medical emergency until the patient’s condition substantially deteriorates may support a negligence claim if the delay caused or materially contributed to the damage.

Not every delay is negligent. Hospital circumstances, diagnostic uncertainty, availability of specialists and the patient’s condition may all be relevant.

Prescribing the Wrong Medicine

A doctor may potentially be negligent when an inappropriate drug, dangerous dosage or contraindicated medicine is prescribed because reasonable precautions were not taken.

Relevant considerations may include whether the doctor:

• checked known allergies;
• considered significant medical history;
• examined interactions with other medicines;
• prescribed an appropriate dosage; and
• monitored serious foreseeable adverse effects where monitoring was medically required.

An unexpected adverse drug reaction despite reasonable care does not by itself establish negligence.

Negligent Performance of Surgery

Surgical negligence may arise where a procedure is performed without the level of care reasonably expected from a competent surgeon.

Examples could include operating on the wrong part of the body, leaving surgical material inside the body, causing avoidable injury through a serious departure from accepted technique or failing to provide necessary post-operative monitoring.

However, every surgical complication is not negligence. Surgery inherently involves risks, and complications can occur even where the procedure is performed properly.

Failure to Monitor the Patient

Medical responsibility does not necessarily end after prescribing medicine or completing surgery.

A patient’s condition may require regular observations, laboratory investigations, monitoring of vital signs or immediate intervention when warning signs arise.

Failure to undertake monitoring that was reasonably necessary in the circumstances may amount to negligence where that omission causes harm.

Failure to Refer the Patient to a Specialist

A doctor is not required to possess expertise in every branch of medicine.

However, circumstances may require referral to an appropriate specialist. Continuing treatment despite recognising that the case requires expertise beyond the practitioner’s competence may amount to negligence if the failure to refer leads to avoidable harm.

Failure to Provide Proper Post-Operative Care

Proper care after surgery can be as important as the operation itself.

Failure to recognise post-operative bleeding, infection, respiratory difficulties or other serious complications may constitute negligence when proper monitoring would reasonably have detected the problem and timely intervention could have prevented or reduced the harm.

Can Lack of Patient Consent Amount to Medical Negligence?

Treatment without valid consent can create legal liability.

In Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, the Supreme Court considered the importance of patient consent in medical treatment. The case concerned a patient who had consented to a diagnostic procedure but underwent more extensive surgery while under anaesthesia. The Court discussed the requirement of valid consent for medical procedures and the circumstances in which additional procedures may or may not be justified.

Ordinarily, consent for one diagnostic or therapeutic procedure cannot be treated as unlimited authority to perform substantially different procedures.

A different position may arise during a genuine emergency where immediate additional treatment becomes necessary to save life or preserve health and obtaining consent is practically impossible.

Is Every Medical Error Considered Negligence?

No. Every medical error is not medical negligence.

Medicine is not an exact science. Doctors frequently have to choose among different treatment options based on symptoms, available information and professional judgment.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that a simple lack of care, an accident or an error of judgment does not automatically prove professional negligence. A doctor following a practice accepted by the medical profession at the relevant time is not negligent merely because a better alternative may later appear to have been available.

The legal test focuses on whether the conduct fell below the reasonable professional standard.

Is an Unsuccessful Treatment Medical Negligence?

An unsuccessful treatment is not automatically medical negligence.

A patient may fail to recover despite receiving appropriate treatment. A disease may progress unexpectedly, the body may respond differently to treatment, complications may arise, or a procedure may carry recognised risks.

Therefore:

Bad result ≠ automatic negligence.

Negligence requires proof that the standard of reasonable medical care was breached and that the breach caused the harm.

This distinction is important because otherwise every unsuccessful surgery or treatment could result in legal liability even where the doctor acted competently.

Is a Difference of Medical Opinion Negligence?

A genuine difference of professional opinion ordinarily does not establish negligence.

Two competent doctors may reasonably disagree about:

• the appropriate diagnostic test;
• whether surgery is immediately required;
• which medicine should be prescribed;
• the preferred surgical technique; or
• whether conservative treatment should be attempted first.

The fact that another doctor would have chosen a different course does not by itself prove that the original treatment was negligent.

Kusum Sharma emphasised that where a doctor follows an acceptable medical practice, liability should not arise merely because another treatment method was available.

Can a Hospital Be Guilty of Medical Negligence?

Yes. Medical negligence is not limited to individual doctors.

A hospital can potentially incur liability for failures relating to the healthcare system it operates.

Hospital negligence may include:

• failure to provide properly functioning essential equipment;
• negligent nursing care;
• inadequate monitoring of patients;
• serious failures in hygiene or infection-control procedures;
• administration of the wrong medicine by hospital staff;
• failure to maintain proper medical records;
• unreasonable delay in arranging necessary treatment; or
• failures involving staff acting within the course of their professional duties.

The liability of the hospital depends on the nature of the relationship, the particular failure and the evidence connecting that failure to the patient’s harm.

What Is the Difference Between Civil and Criminal Medical Negligence?

Civil and criminal medical negligence operate at different levels.

Civil Medical Negligence

Civil negligence principally concerns compensation for injury caused by breach of a duty of care.

A patient may seek compensation where deficient medical treatment causes physical injury, additional expenditure, disability, suffering, loss of income or death.

Medical negligence claims may involve principles of tort law, contractual liability and consumer protection law depending on the circumstances.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides the statutory framework governing consumer disputes and deficiency in services.

Criminal Medical Negligence

Criminal liability requires a considerably higher degree of negligence.

In Jacob Mathew, the Supreme Court emphasised that negligence sufficient for criminal liability must be gross or of a very high degree. Ordinary negligence that may justify civil compensation does not necessarily justify criminal punishment.

This distinction protects medical professionals from criminal prosecution for every professional mistake while preserving criminal liability for sufficiently serious negligent conduct.

What Does the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Say About Medical Negligence?

Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with causing death by negligence.

Generally, causing death through a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide may attract imprisonment extending to five years and fine.

However, where such an act is committed by a registered medical practitioner while performing a medical procedure, the provision prescribes imprisonment that may extend to two years, along with fine.

The explanation to the provision links the meaning of registered medical practitioner to recognised medical qualifications and registration under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

The existence of Section 106 does not mean that every medical death results in criminal liability. The principles laid down in Jacob Mathew regarding the high threshold for criminal medical negligence remain highly relevant when determining criminal culpability.

How Is Medical Negligence Proved?

A medical negligence case is normally examined through medical records and evidence showing the standard of care expected in the circumstances.

Relevant evidence may include:

• prescriptions and treatment records;
• diagnostic reports;
• hospital records and discharge summaries;
• consent forms;
• operation notes;
• medical bills;
• expert medical opinion;
• testimony of doctors and hospital staff; and
• evidence showing the connection between the alleged negligence and injury.

Expert evidence can be important where determining negligence requires specialised medical knowledge. However, every case does not necessarily require expert evidence where negligence is obvious from the circumstances.

For example, some situations may permit application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur, meaning that the occurrence itself may provide strong evidence of negligence when the event ordinarily would not happen without negligence and the relevant circumstances were under the defendant’s control.

Leading Cases on Medical Negligence in India

Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab

This is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions on medical negligence. The Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab explained the standard of reasonable professional competence, discussed the Bolam test and distinguished civil negligence from the much higher degree required for criminal liability.

Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre

The Supreme Court in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre laid down important principles for assessing medical negligence and reiterated that doctors are expected to exercise reasonable skill and care. A mere error of judgment, accident or availability of another treatment option does not automatically establish negligence.

Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda

This case is particularly important on consent to medical treatment. The Supreme Court examined when consent is valid and the circumstances in which a doctor may perform a procedure beyond the procedure originally authorised by the patient.

Conclusion

Medical negligence in India is not determined simply by asking whether treatment succeeded or failed. The central question is whether the doctor, hospital or healthcare professional exercised the reasonable degree of skill and care expected in the circumstances.

A claim generally requires a duty of care, breach of that duty and resulting damage. Negligence may arise from unreasonable failures in diagnosis, treatment, medication, surgery, monitoring, referral, post-operative care or consent. At the same time, an unsuccessful procedure, recognised complication, genuine difference of medical opinion or reasonable error of judgment does not automatically create liability.

Indian courts therefore attempt to maintain a balance. Patients must have an effective remedy when medical care falls below legally acceptable standards, while doctors must remain free to exercise reasonable professional judgment without facing liability merely because a treatment produces an unfavourable result.

The ultimate determination depends on the facts of each case, the medical condition involved, accepted professional standards, available medical evidence and the causal relationship between the alleged breach and the harm suffered.