Vivekanshu Verma, Shri Gopal Kabra
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
Background: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) redefines “injury” and “illegal” acts, creating ambiguity in medical negligence jurisprudence. This article examines whether harm caused by licensed physicians during treatment constitutes “illegally caused injury” under BNS. Methods: Doctrinal analysis of BNS Sections 2(14), 2(15), and 26; comparative review of IPC provisions, common law, and landmark case laws. Results: Liability hinges on breach of statutory duty (BNS 2(15), not mere harm. Deficient consent invalidates treatment legality but requires causal harm for negligence claims. Consumer law frames consent as contractual autonomy. Conclusion: BNS prioritizes legality of conduct over outcome. Harmonizing statutory “good faith” (Sec 26) with material risk disclosure prevents liability. The article underscores the classic legal dilemma between wrongful harm and privileged action under statutory license.
Verma V, Kabra SG. Injury, an actionable wrong, is defined as harm illegally caused versus act of a Licensed Medical Practitioner. Indi J of Legal Medi. 2025;6(2):145-56.
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
| Received | Accepted | Published |
|---|---|---|
| July 17, 2025 | October 06, 2025 | December 30, 2025 |
Friday 31 July 2026, 15:25:51 (IST)
Download citation
Highlight selected keywords in the article text.
| Received | July 17, 2025 |
| Accepted | October 06, 2025 |
| Published | December 30, 2025 |
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.