DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW.

CRIMINAL LAW-1

FINAL DRAFT ON

JACOB MATHEWS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Under The Guidance of: Submitted by:-

Dr. Kumar Askand Panday Shalini Dwivedi

Asstt. Professor (Law) Rollno.121

Dr. RMLNLU III Semester

Signature of Professor Signature of student

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my Assistant

Professor Dr. Kumar Askand Pandey for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant

encouragement to give shape to this project. The blessing, help and guidance given by him

time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark.

 I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my respected seniors who

share their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in

completing this task through various stages.

Lastly, I thank the almighty, my parents, brother, sisters and friends for their constant

encouragement without which this assignment would not have been possible.

Shalini

2

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. OBJECTIVE 2. CITATION3. BENCH OF JUDGES4. INTRODUCTION5. BRIEF FACTS6. ISSUES7. LAW ON THE POINT8. DECISION9. RATIO10.ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION11.DEVELOPMENT

3

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to study the case thoroughly and analyse it. The case is based on medical negligence.

CITATION:

(2005) 6 SCC 1

BENCH STRENGTH: The bench in the present case is a three judges bench

comprising namely, R. C Lahoti, C.J., G. P. Mathur J. and P. K. Balasubramanyam, JJ.

INTRODUCTIONThe following case pertains to medical negligence or whether they can be held criminally

liable for the same.

For a patient, the doctor is like God. And, the God is infallible. But that is what the patient

thinks. In reality, doctors are human beings. And, to err is human. Doctors may commit a

mistake. Doctors may be negligent. The support staff may be careless. Two acts of

negligence may give rise to a much greater problem. It may be due to gross negligence.

Anything is possible. In such a scenario, it is vital to determine who was negligent, and

under what circumstances. In a country committed to the rule of law, such matters are taken

to the court and judges are supposed to decide. However, negligence by doctors is difficult

to be determined by judges as they are not trained in medical science. Their decisions are

based on experts’ opinion. Judges apply the basic principles of law in conjunction with the

law of the land to make a decision. Reasonableness and prudence are the guiding factors.

Jacob Mathews is one such case where court discussed some of the issues which are at the

core of medical profession and hospitals. They are directly affected by new interpretation of

an existing law regarding medical professionals.

4

BRIEF FACTS

The facts of the case are as follows:

On February 15, 1995, the informant's father, was admitted as a patient in the private ward of

a hospital. On February 22, 1995 at about 11 p.m., the patient felt difficulty in breathing. The

complainant's elder brother, who was present in the room, contacted the duty nurse, who in

turn called a doctor to attend to the patient. No doctor turned up for 20-25 minutes and then

doctors came to the room of the patient. An oxygen cylinder was brought and connected to

the mouth of the patient, but the breathing problem increased further. The patient tried to get

up, but the medical staff asked him to remain in the bed. The oxygen cylinder was found to

be empty. There was no other gas cylinder available in the room. Son of the patient went to

the adjoining room and brought a gas cylinder. However, there was no arrangement to make

the gas cylinder functional. By this time, another doctor came and declared that the patient

was dead.

The matter against doctors, hospital staff and hospital went up to the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES INVOLVED

Whether different standards can be applied while determining the liability of

professionals, esp. Doctors. (in the present case).

Can a doctor be placed at a different pedestal for finding out whether rashness or

negligence was involved?

Is there a difference in civil and criminal law on the concept of negligence?

LAW ON THE POINT:

Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code — Whoever causes the death of any person

by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two

years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code-When a criminal act is done by several

persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable

for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

5

DECISION

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The prosecution of the accused appellant under

Section 304-A / 34 IPC is quashed.

RATIO

The first and the foremost principle which court lay down in this case is distinction as to

when negligence would be treated as a crime and as a tort: the factor of grossness and degree

does assume significance while drawing distinction in negligence actionable in tort and

negligence punishable in crime. To the latter negligence has to be gross and of very high

degree.

The reasoning of the court behind not holding doctors liable because in this case as they acted

in a way in which an ordinarily member of his profession would have acted. Patient died

because of non- availability of oxygen cylinder and this is the work of hospital authorities

and staff to see the that required number of oxygen cylinder are available and not that of

doctor. Had the doctor been negligent in his work, he may be held liable but that too not

criminally liable. To make a doctor criminally liable, the impugned act of doctor should be of

high degree resulting damage.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

If we analyse the above judgement, we see that in the present case the idea of negligence can

be understood only when there is clarity about the duty of the doctor, assisting staff and the

hospital as a whole. In the present case it is because of non-availability of oxygen cylinder

either because of the hospital having failed to keep available a gas cylinder or because of the

gas cylinder being found empty. Then, probably the hospital may be liable in civil law but the

accused appellant cannot be proceeded against under Section 304-A of IPC.

The doctor is under an obligation and is directly liable for the acts performed by him. For the

assisting staff, it is the duty of the hospital and the person himself. Both have a joint and

several liabilities. Thus, it is advisable to have clear-cut duties laid down for different

persons. But, in practice, this is not so easy. It cannot be done perfectly. But even if it is not

so easy an attempt can be made in trying to do this even in an imperfect manner rather that

not doing it at all. It will provide a basic framework, which will helps in deciding matters in

situations of confusion and failure.

6

If we look at the issues involved in this case, the Supreme Court stated that the main question

in the above case was whether different standards could be applied to professionals (doctors)

alone, placing them on a higher pedestal for finding criminal liability for their acts or

omissions. Further, the Court observed that allegations of rashness or negligence are often

raised against doctors by persons without adequate medical knowledge, to extract unjust

compensation. This results in serious embarrassment and pestering to doctors who are forced

to seek bail to escape arrest. If bail is not granted, they will have to suffer incarceration. They

may be exonerated of the charges at the end; but in the meantime they would have suffered a

loss of reputation; often irreversible. The tendency to initiate such cases has therefore to be

curbed. The Court also keenly noted that as citizens become increasingly conscious of their

rights, they are filing more cases against doctors in the civil courts, as also under the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service.

I would like to conclude that since the medical profession renders a noble service, it must be

shielded from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. But this immunity is available only in

criminal courts and not elsewhere. The decision in Jacob Mathew’s case is thus a landmark

judgment in medico-legal field of country.

DEVELOPMENTS Jacob Mathew’s v. State of Punjab is a good decision in the direction of making this murky

area a bit tidy, This decision has also been cited with approval in recent cases of 2010 V.

Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital1(division bench) in which another division

bench judgement of 2009 -Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq2 has been declared per

incuriam on the basis of Jacob Mathews judgement and that is why this judgement is treated

as a landmark judgement, however, a lot needs to be done Considering the level of illiteracy,

poverty and unaware of legal set up of the country, poor economic conditions of patients in

large number by the courts in the shape of clearer judgments so that the layman can benefit.

1 (2010) 5 SCC 513.2 AIR 2009 SC 2049.

7