Published On: February 2nd 2026
Authored By: Mahi Shah
NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law
Abstract
Medical negligence is not simply a legal term, but an actual fact of life. This article looks at how the meaning medical negligence has changed over time, starting with very early cases where it was first recognized that a doctor has responsibility to provide reasonable care. As society changed and medical technology became more complicated, so too did the law evolve in order to protect patients better. The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) marked a major sea-change – Should medical services deserve its own category? By its landmark judgment in “The Indian Medical Association V.P. Shantha[1]“, the Supreme Court held that most medical services do fall under this Act-for patients (Opens up a clearer way for justice). By looking at key cases like Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab and Spring Meadows Hospital Harjot Ahluwalia, this article brings out how courts have tried to balance patient safety with the very real difficulties doctors incur in their professional lives. As a whole, they recite whether or not fairness, accountability, and kindness pervade healthcare policy.
Introduction
Medical negligence arises when a doctor or other medical professional breaches a duty of care owed to a patient, and that breach results in damage.
The Doctor’s Duties: When a patient consults a doctor, the doctor owes certain duties to that patient, including:
- A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case.
- A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give.
- A duty of care in the administration of that treatment.
A breach of any of these duties gives the patient a right of action for negligence.
The Standard of Care: The standard required is based on the concept of professional competence and reasonableness.
A person who enters a learned profession undertakes to bring to the exercise of it such care and skill as becomes one belonging to that profession.[2]
Proving Medical Negligence: In an action for negligence against a doctor, the plaintiff must prove three specific elements:
- That the doctor was under a duty to take reasonable care toward the plaintiff to avoid the damage complained of.
- That there was a breach of such duty on the part of the doctor.
- That such breach of duty was the real cause of the damage complained of, and that the damage was reasonably foreseeable.
If a plaintiff proves the doctor was negligent but fails to prove that any loss or injury was caused by that negligence, the claim will be dismissed.[3]
History
The Bolam principle is a legal test used in medical negligence cases, originating from the 1957 English case Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee[4], which states a doctor is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice that is, at the time, accepted as proper by a responsible and respectable body of medical professionals in their field. This established a standard of care based on the prevailing consensus within the medical community, allowing doctors to choose among differing professional opinions without being held liable for negligence, provided their chosen action was acceptable to a respectable body of opinion.
Key Aspects of the Bolam Principle
- Professional Consensus: The test relies on the principle that if a doctor’s actions are supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not considered negligent. e
- Deference to Expertise: It reflects a degree of deference to the medical profession, recognizing that medicine is not an exact science and differences in opinion and practice are common.
- Standard of Care: It defines the standard of care expected of a doctor by aligning it with the practices of the medical profession itself.
Medical Services as per Consumer Protection Act (2019)
- Definition of Service: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines “service” broadly as service of any description made available to potential users, encompassing, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with health.
- Exclusions: This definition generally excludes the rendering of any service free of charge or service rendered under a contract of personal service.
- Scope of Coverage: Patients who are aggrieved by any deficiency in treatment are entitled to seek damages under the Consumer Protection Act. This includes seeking remedies against both private clinics and Government hospitals. [5]
Medical Services as per Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act (2019)
In the context of deficiency in medical services, particularly regarding emergencies, judicial mandates outline specific requirements for healthcare providers:
- Immediate Treatment: All registered public and private hospitals must attend to an injured person immediately.
- Prohibition on Detention/Demand: Hospitals are prohibited from detaining bystanders or Good Samaritans or demanding payment from them for registration and admission costs for the treatment of an accident victim.
- Professional Misconduct: A doctor’s lack of response or failure to provide care in an emergency situation pertaining to road accidents, where they are expected to provide care, constitutes “Professional Misconduct” under Chapter 7 of the Indian Medical Council Regulations, which can lead to disciplinary action under Chapter 8.[6][7]
Cases
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)[8]
Principle: This leading case established that the test for medical negligence is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. Negligence means the failure to act in accordance with the standards of reasonably competent medical professionals at the time.
- Dr. Lakshman Balkrishna Joshi v Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (AIR 1969 SC 128)[9]
Facts: The doctor treated a 20-year-old patient with a fractured leg without administering proper anesthetic, relying only on a single dose of morphine. Excessive force was used by the doctor and three attendants while pulling the injured leg, causing the conscious patient to die of shock.
Principle: The doctor was held guilty of negligence for breaching his duties of care in deciding the treatment and its administration.
- Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1] (AIR 2005 SC 3180)[10]
Facts: A patient in a hospital experienced difficulty breathing. Doctors arrived and attached an oxygen cylinder, which was discovered to be empty, leading to a fatal delay while a replacement was sought.
Principle: This case clarified the distinction between civil and criminal negligence in the medical context. The degree of negligence for criminal liability must be “gross” or of a “very high degree”. Simple lack of care, an error of judgment, or an accident does not constitute negligence for a medical professional, provided they follow an acceptable professional practice (the Bolam test).
- Ram Bihari Lal v Dr. J.N. Shrivastava (AIR 1985 M.R 150)[11]
Facts: A doctor advised an appendicitis operation but, finding the appendix normal under chloroform anesthesia, removed the patient’s gall bladder without obtaining the husband’s consent, leading to the patient’s death from toxic effects of the anesthetic.
Principle: The surgeon was held liable for his rash and negligent act, highlighting the potential liability for unauthorized procedures.
- Indian Medical Asscn. v V.P. Shantha (AIR 1996 SC 550)[12]
Principle: The court confirmed that medical assistance is a “service” and a patient is a “consumer.” As a result, patients can seek damages for deficient treatment from both private clinics and Government hospitals under the Consumer Protection Act.
Conclusion
In conclusion, medical negligence is a high-stakes area of tort law defined by the strict professional duty of care. While intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence can lead to severe consequences, the law generally seeks to protect medical practitioners from liability arising from mere errors in judgment or accidents, ensuring that the primary standard remains one of reasonable professional competence
References
[1] Indian Medical Assn V. V.P Shantha &Ors. [2013]
[2] A.K.Jain, Law of Torts(Fourth Edition, 2010 Fifth Edition, 2012)96
[3] A.K.Jain, Law of Torts(Fourth Edition, 2010 Fifth Edition, 2012)97
[4] Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee[1957]
[5] Consumer Protection Act 2019
[6] Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act (2019)
[7] Savelife Foundation & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr[2016]
[8] Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]
[9] Dr. Lakshman Balkrishna Joshi v Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole [1968]
[10] Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab [2005]
[11] Ram Bihari Lal v Dr. J.N. Shrivastava [1985]
[12] Indian Medical Asscn v V.P. Shantha[1996]
