Abstract

Medical negligence remains one of the most complex intersections of law, ethics, and healthcare practice. A single act of breach of duty by a licensed medical practitioner resulting in unintended harm or death can be actionable under multiple legal regimes: consumer protection law, civil tort law, common law negligence, professional disciplinary proceedings, and criminal law. Each forum applies distinct procedural codes (CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act, and Medical Council regulations), with varying standards of proof, thresholds of negligence, and remedies. While civil and consumer jurisdictions focus on compensatory justice, criminal law requires proof of gross negligence beyond reasonable doubt, and medical councils emphasize ethical accountability. Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Martin D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, has clarified differential thresholds and directed the National Medical Commission to issue guidelines. These guidelines, though advisory in nature, carry persuasive authority and shape professional conduct standards. This article examines the procedural and substantive distinctions across jurisdictions, the harmonizing role of Supreme Court directions, and the compliance implications for physicians and hospitals in India.

• 1.   Kapoor AK, Prakash A. Medical negligence: A review of judicial trends in India. Med Leg J. 2021;89(2):112-20.
• 2.   Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Gazette of India. 2019 Sep 9.
• 3.   National Medical Commission Act, 2019. Gazette of India. 2019 Aug 9.
• 4.   Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.
• 5.   Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651.
• 6.   Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sections 304A, 337, 338.
• 7.   Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 [as amended by NMC].
• 8.   Martin F.D. Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1.
• 9.   National Medical Commission. Guidelines on medical negligence [internet]. New Delhi: NMC; 2020 [cited 2026 Jan 27]. Available from: https://www.nmc.org.in/guidelines/.
• 10.   Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana vs. Joginder Singh, (2021) 9 SCC 662. Link: https://www. supremecourtcases.com/dr-harish-kumarkhurana-v-joginder-singh-and-others/.
• 11.   https://www.casemine.com/commentary/ i n / r e e v a l u a t i n g - m e d i c a l - n e g l i g e n c e - standards:-insights-from-dr.-harish-kumarkhurana-v.-joginder-singh-and-others/view.
• 12.   https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/ procedure-rules/civil/rules/part35.
• 13.   https://www.supremecourtcases.com/drharish-kumar-khurana-v-joginder-singh-andothers/.
• 14.   https://www.scribd.com/document/ 728422654/Dr-Harish-Kumar-Khurana-VsJoginder-Singh.
• 15.   Agrawal S, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns of Indian ophthalmologists toward medicolegal aspects. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023;71(12):3625-31.
• 16.   Nundy S, et al. Defensive medicine practices in India: A survey of surgeons. Natl Med J India. 2021;34(2):7