In the judgement of the case-Dr Dwarkadas Narayandas Rathi (69), a Medical Practitioner of Akola District v. State of Maharashtra and two others, delivered on February 6, 2026 at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, Justice Urmila Joshi- Phalke has ruled that a medical practitioner would be liable only, where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. The Court has observed further that the standard of care has to be judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident and not at the time of the trial. In the opinion of the HC there is a difference between the “simple negligence” and “gross negligence”, which has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case – Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another (2005) 6 SCC 1. It must be remembered that sometimes despite their best efforts, the treatment by doctor fails and sometimes despite efforts of a surgeon, patient dies.

 

However, that does not mean that the doctor/surgeon must be held to be guilty of ‘medical negligence’, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that he has not taken due care and caution while treating the patients. Through this application, the applicant-Dr. Rathi has sought quashing of the FIR in connection with the crime registered under sections 304-A and 201 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same. In this case, the informant, Ganesh Dinkar Kayande serving as PSI at the Police Station, Telhara in Akola District, has alleged “medical negligence “on the part of the applicant, who is a doctor by profession, who has given an injection in spinal cord of Dilip Malekar, the deceased, who had, unfortunately succumbed to effect of the said injection. After receipt of the CA report, opinion was received that cause of the death of the deceased was “due to shock, due to pulmonary edema, due to trauma to thoracic spinal cord and coronary artery disease with acute tubular necrosis of the kidneys”. As per the investigation papers, the deceased had been to the clinic of the applicant where he was injected and, thereafter, he never regained consciousness and subsequently died on May 16, 2022. During investigation, it was further revealed that the deceased died of “pulmonary edema”. It could be the reaction due to trauma to the thoracic spinal chord due to an “unknown injection”. Though the treatment papers were demanded, the applicant had not provided the same.

 

The department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Akola, by the letter of November 3, 2022, had also intimated the same cause of death. The Advisory Committee had accepted the said cause of death and, thereafter, FIR was lodged against the applicant. The report, on which the reliance has been placed for registration of the offences also nowhere discloses that it was the applicant, who has injected the deceased. It only shows the cause of death due to the “unknown injection”. The Committee has also placed reliance on the statement of Shubham, whose statement is only to the extent that the applicant had examined the deceased and asked him to rest. However, it nowhere discloses that he is having any knowledge that any injection was injected by the applicant. Thus, neither the report, nor the statements of the witnesses indicate any “negligence” on the part of the applicant. Therefore, in view of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, registering offence under Section 304-A IPC alleging the crime of “gross negligence” is ruled out.

 

The Police registered the said crime, which is grave in nature. The investigating agency also ignored the fact that essential requirements of this offence is causing death with intention or knowledge and both these requirements are absent. Even the Experts Committee report is not of any help on this score. As held in various judgements, it shows a fine balance between the preserving and upholding the faith that citizens have on the medical profession and on the treatment of doctors and the evidence is required prima facie to establish “gross negligence” to attract the offence under section 304-A IPC. Thus, in view of the settled principles, a medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgement in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another.

 

The Counsel for the applicant had also submitted to the Court that the applicant had been to Pune for his personal work and he came to Shegaon by Maharashtra Express and reached Telhara at 12.30 PM on May 16, 2022. The applicant was attending his patients at 2.15 PM after reaching his Clinic. At that time, he received a call from his sweeper, who informed him that a patient whose name was not known to him, was sitting on a bench. In consultation with the wife of the applicant, who is also a medical professional, the said patient was allowed to take rest on the bed kept adjoining the waiting area. At about 2.45 PM, the applicant was examining his patients. He heard noise from the side of the patients, who were waiting in the waiting area and the applicant noticed that the person who was taking rest in the nearby adjoining area of the waiting room had fallen down. Considering the facts of this case, the HC’s opinion is that the evidence collected during the investigation is not sufficient to hold the applicant-doctor guilty for “medical negligence”. In this view of the matter, the High Court here, has allowed the application. The HC has quashed and set aside the FIR in connection with Crime 161/2023 registered under section 304-A and 201 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same hearing SCC No. 649/2023 to the extent of the applicant –Dr Dwarkadas Narayandas Rathi.