Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab

• The case arose from allegations of medical negligence against a doctor, involving questions of both civil and criminal liability. The Supreme Court used the opportunity to comprehensively clarify the appropriate standard for assessing medical negligence. The Court specifically addressed the distinction between civil negligence and the higher threshold required for criminal liability.

1. What is the appropriate standard for assessing medical negligence, and how should a mere error of judgment or unsuccessful treatment outcome be distinguished from genuine negligence.

• A mere error of judgment, without more, does not constitute negligence. Doctors are not held to a standard of guaranteed success or infallibility. The applicable standard is reasonable care and skill expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the relevant field, reinforcing the Bolam standard. Criminal liability for medical negligence requires an even higher threshold: gross negligence.

Medical negligence, whether pursued civilly or criminally, must be distinguished from an unsuccessful treatment outcome or an honest error of judgment. The applicable standard is reasonable care and skill expected of a reasonably competent practitioner, not a guarantee of success, with criminal liability requiring a still higher threshold of gross negligence.