Source:  Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Justice G. Girish held that telephonic treatment by doctor not criminal negligence in patient's death. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Dr. Joseph John MD v. The State of Kerala and another (2025). 

What was the Background of Dr. Joseph John MD v. The State of Kerala and another (2025) Case? 

• Dr. Joseph John, a Consultant Gastroenterologist at a private hospital in Ernakulam, was booked under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for alleged criminal negligence. 
• The case involved a 29-year-old kidney transplant recipient who was admitted to the hospital on 14th May 2012 for abdominal pain and vomiting related to intestinal complaints. 
• After successful treatment, the patient was advised discharge, but developed breathlessness, fever, and vomiting around midnight on 25th May 2012. 
• The duty nurse called Dr. John at his residence around 4:30 a.m. on 26th May 2012, whereupon he prescribed certain medications over telephone and directed laboratory tests. 
• The patient was later shifted to the Nephrology Intensive Care Unit at 8:00 a.m. on 26th May 2012 and passed away approximately 34 hours later due to renal complications. 
• The patient's father filed a complaint alleging medical negligence, claiming the doctor failed to attend to the patient personally or refer him to a nephrologist immediately. 
• Following investigations, a State Level Apex Body found fault with the petitioner, directing investigation against him on charges of criminal negligence. 
• Consequently, the Investigating Officer filed a final report against Dr. John alleging commission of offence under Section 304A IPC. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that the course adopted by the petitioner (prescribing medicines and laboratory tests) had not been found wrong by any members of the Expert Panel. 
• The Court emphasized that for fixing criminal liability on a doctor, the standard of negligence required to be proved must be so high as can be described as "gross negligence" or "recklessness." 
• The Court observed that mere inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate care might create civil liability but would not suffice to hold a medical professional criminally liable. 
• Justice G. Girish highlighted that criminal prosecution of doctors without sufficient material showing gross negligence would amount to "great disservice to the community at large." 
• The Court found absolutely nothing on record to show the petitioner's actions amounted to gross negligence never expected from a doctor of similar stature. 
• The High Court concluded that the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner constituted an abuse of process of court which had to be terminated at the threshold. 
• Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No.174/2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. 

What is Section 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 106 of the BNS addresses deaths caused by negligent acts. 
• The statute establishes criminal liability for any person who causes death through rash or negligent conduct not amounting to culpable homicide, punishable with imprisonment up to five years and fine. 
• The provision contains a specific clause pertaining to registered medical practitioners, prescribing a reduced maximum punishment of two years imprisonment and fine when death occurs during a medical procedure. 
• The section explicitly defines "registered medical practitioner" as one possessing qualifications recognized under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, with registration in either the National or State Medical Register. 
• A heightened penalty applies in sub-section (2) for hit-and-run cases, imposing imprisonment up to ten years and fine upon those who cause death through rash and negligent driving and subsequently flee without reporting to authorities. 
• This statutory framework creates a graduated approach to negligence-related deaths, distinguishing between general negligence, medical negligence, and vehicular negligence with flight from the scene. 
• The provision acknowledges the specialized nature of medical practice by creating a separate sentencing structure for healthcare professionals, reflecting legislative intent to differentiate between ordinary negligence and errors occurring within professional medical contexts. 
• Importantly, as confirmed by judicial precedent, conviction under this section requires proof of gross negligence or recklessness, particularly in medical cases, not merely error of judgment or insufficient care.