Supreme Court to Address 20-Year Stalemate in Criminal Medical Negligence Prosecution Framework

Supreme Court to Hear PIL on Criminal Medical Negligence Rules

Overview of the Public Interest Litigation

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is set to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) that calls for the Centre and all State Governments to establish statutory rules for prosecuting cases of criminal medical negligence. This action stems from the Supreme Court’s directive nearly two decades ago, following the significant Jacob Mathew judgment.

Inaction Since the Jacob Mathew Judgment

The PIL highlights a troubling “20-year-long inaction” by authorities, despite a Supreme Court order from August 5, 2005. This order mandated the Union and state governments to create statutory rules or executive instructions for prosecuting doctors in negligence cases. According to IANS, this oversight has persisted for far too long.

Historical Context of the Supreme Court’s Directions

In the landmark Jacob Mathew case, the Supreme Court first directed the Centre to consult with the Medical Council of India (MCI) in 2005 to develop statutory rules addressing medical negligence cases. This directive was essential as it impacts both healthcare providers and patients.

The Supreme Court also established interim guidelines, which stipulated that before acting against a doctor accused of negligence, an independent medical opinion must be obtained. This opinion should ideally come from a qualified government physician in the relevant medical field to ensure impartiality.

Challenges Due to Lack of Statutory Rules

Despite these guidelines, the absence of formal statutory rules has left investigating officers uncertain about whom to approach for assistance from the State Medical Councils. In 2017, the MCI proposed the creation of medical boards composed of specialists to address these issues. Following the MCI’s dissolution, the National Medical Commission (NMC) reiterated this suggestion to the Union Health Ministry in September 2021.

In a recent RTI response, the Union Ministry acknowledged that it is considering the healthcare sector’s longstanding demand for guidelines on medical negligence cases.

Concerns Raised in the PIL

The PIL expresses disappointment over the prolonged delay in establishing mandatory rules, stating that “the nation has since been waiting for more than 20 years” since the Jacob Mathew judgment. It critiques the current inquiry system, which is perceived as biased, given that medical negligence allegations are often evaluated by committees primarily composed of doctors.

The petition asserts that the lack of statutory rules and the predominance of medical professionals in inquiry committees lead to biased reports. It highlights that many innocent individuals suffer due to severe medical negligence, resulting in “torturous, agonising, miserable, ignoble and often butchering deaths” in hospitals across the country.

The petition further notes the helplessness felt by patients’ families, as they have little hope for justice in a system where “doctors judge doctors,” favoring their profession. An RTI reply from the NMC confirmed that “no such guidelines have been framed,” and the process is still ongoing.

Statistical Evidence and Call to Action

The PIL references the 73rd Parliamentary Standing Committee Report (2013), which observed that medical professionals investigating negligence cases tend to exhibit leniency towards their colleagues, resulting in very few prosecutions. According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, only 1,019 cases of death due to medical negligence have been recorded over six years in a country with a population exceeding 1.4 billion.

Through advocate Devansh Srivastava, the PIL urges immediate action, asserting that “every human life is precious” and that preventable deaths in hospitals “cannot be brushed aside merely as disciplinary issues.”

Requests from the PIL

The petition requests that the Supreme Court issue time-bound directives to ensure the immediate formulation and notification of the mandatory rules outlined in the Jacob Mathew judgment. It advocates for the establishment of diverse inquiry panels that include retired judges, civil society members, patient representatives, NHRC nominees, and independent experts, rather than committees dominated by medical professionals.

Additionally, the PIL calls for the implementation of accountability measures to ensure that cases of gross medical negligence leading to death are investigated objectively and prosecuted effectively. Upholding Article 21 of the Constitution, it argues that the right to life encompasses the right to a fair and unbiased investigation into deaths caused by criminal medical negligence.

According to the court’s causelist, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is scheduled to hear this matter on Monday, December 1.

Related Developments

The Union Health Ministry has indicated that it is currently considering guidelines for determining medical negligence cases, as the issue remains a significant concern in the healthcare sector.