DR. JOSEPH JOHN MD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "A medical practitioner faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against criminally. A surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient. If the hands be trembling with the dangling fear of facing a criminal prosecution in the event of failure for whatever reason - whether attributable to himself or not, neither can a surgeon successfully wield his life-saving scalpel to perform an essential surgery, nor can a physician successfully administer the life-saving dose of medicine. Discretion being the better part of valour, a medical professional would feel better advised to leave a terminal patient to his own fate in the case of emergency where the chance of success may be 10% (or so), rather than taking the risk of making a last ditch effort towards saving the subject and facing a criminal prosecution if his effort fails. Such timidity forced upon a doctor would be a disservice to society." (Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1)

(2.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court had spelt out the above words of caution to sensitise the Trial Courts about the need to be extremely diligent while dealing with cases of medical negligence wherein Doctors are booked for the commission of offence under Sec. 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') for the death of the patients treated by them. The general psyche of the society at large is that aspersions are cast about the negligence of the Doctors and other medical personnel whenever a patient treated by them meets with untimely death. It is really unfortunate that the tendency to blame the Doctor for the death of the patient, notwithstanding the fact that it was inevitable in the nature of the ailment suffered by him, is far high when compared with the gratitude shown to a medical professional for saving the life of a patient. This does not mean that the mighty hands of law shall always remain tied whenever a complaint sprouts up about rash and negligent conduct of a medical professional. All that is intended to be conveyed is that the authorities concerned shall not be swayed away by the predilections of aggrieved persons whose minds, due to desperation, tend to find fault with the unsuccessful medical practitioner who strived hard to save the life of his patient.

(3.) Here is a case where the petitioner, a specialist Doctor and Consultant Gastroenterologist of a private hospital at Ernakulam, has been booked by the Ernakulam Town North Police for the commission of offence under Sec. 304A IPC for the death of his patient due to renal complications.