In the seminal case of jacob mathew v state of punjab (2005), the Indian Supreme Court established a set of rules that all courts must go by while rendering a decision in cases involving medical negligence. English law gave rise to the idea of carelessness in tort law, and Indian civil and criminal law both heavily draw from this body of work. The concept of medical negligence was added to the tort law as a basic tort, which is when a patient dies as a result of receiving the wrong treatment, possibly due to the doctor’s or the hospital staff’s negligence. Medical negligence was not previously recognized as an offense.
jacob mathew v state of Punjab Case Facts
- Physician negligence was the subject of the State of Punjab v. Jacob Mathew lawsuit.
- Dr. Jacob Mathew was the accused, while Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma was the informant.
- The case is that on February 15, 1995, Mr. Jeevan Lal, the informant’s father, was hospitalized to CMC Hospital in Ludhiana.
- At approximately 11 p.m. on February 22, 1995, Jeevan Lal started having respiratory problems. The informant, Mr. Vijay Sharma, was accompanied at the hospital by his elder brother. Since it was an emergency, he asked the nursing attendant who was on duty to call the doctor. It took the doctors, Mr. Jacob Mathew and Dr. Allen Joseph, over twenty to twenty-five minutes.
- Even after the physicians gave him oxygen (using an oxygen cylinder), Jeevan Lal was still having trouble breathing. The physicians prevented Jeevan Lal from getting out of bed when he attempted to.
- Vijay Sharma saw that the oxygen cylinder the physicians were using was empty in the meantime. Searching for a gas cylinder, he dashed into another room and discovered one. Although he brought the cylinder, no plans were made to fix it. More than seven minutes were wasted on the cylinder’s repair.
- Subsequently, a different physician examined the patient and pronounced him deceased. Then, the informant reported the doctors in a Federal Register entry. He claimed that the physicians had neglected to treat the patient appropriately.
- Oxygen was administered to the patient via an empty cylinder. The person who saw the empty gas cylinder and took the appropriate action was Vijay Sharma. The informant also expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of a plan in place for providing oxygen to the patient, which led to additional delays in doing so.
- Vijay Kumar was sentenced and the patient’s body was sent to his village for cremation. The informant stated that his father suffocated to death as a result of the doctors’ carelessness in failing to give him oxygen at the appropriate moment.
- Based on the statement, a criminal negligence plea under section 304a of indian penal code, read with section 34 of the ipc, was filed, and a challan was issued against the two doctors.
jacob mathew v state of Punjab Issues
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s first question concerned whether there was a standard by which one could judge whether or not a doctor had acted negligently while carrying out their duties.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s second question concerned whether the definition of carelessness in criminal and civil law differed in any way.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner claimed that Dr. Mathew had violated his duty of care by neglecting to advise the patient of the relevant hazards related to the course of treatment.
Respondent:
- Conversely, the state argued that Dr. Mathew had not behaved negligently and had given the required care.
jacob mathew v state of Punjab Judgment
- A doctor named Dr. Jacob Mathew was accused of medical negligence in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab because of the way he treated a patient who had sustained a leg injury. After being admitted to the hospital where Dr. Mathew worked, the patient’s condition deteriorated, prompting a referral to a different facility, where he ultimately passed away.
- The Supreme Court of India ruled that there was no allegation in the complaint that Dr. Mathew was not a licensed physician to treat the patient. Furthermore, there were claims that an oxygen cylinder was missing, and the hospital administration was held accountable for this.
- According to the court, the hospital can be held accountable for these mistakes under civil law. section 304a of indian penal code (IPC) deals with causing death by negligence; however, the court decided that Dr. Mathew could not be found guilty under this section since there was insufficient evidence to link his conduct to the patient’s death.
- The court emphasized that physicians ought to be shielded against arbitrary or baseless prosecution. Additionally, it specified that before a physician can be charged with medical negligence, a higher threshold requirement must be satisfied.
- The prosecution will now proceed under Section 304A and section 34 of the ipc, which addresses activities carried out by multiple people in pursuit of a similar aim, if at all, the Supreme Court decided after accepting the appeals.
The case emphasized the significance of informed consent in medical treatment and established significant guidelines about the duty of care that physicians had to their patients. The case reminds medical professionals of their duties to their patients and patients of their entitlement to quality care.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
