Doctors Won't Presumably Commit 'Medical Negligence' As It Can Ruin Their Professional And Economic Stability: Rajasthan HC Quashes FIR

While quashing an FIR against private doctors booked for negligently mistreating a patient pursuant to which she passed away, the Rajasthan High Court observed that it would be wrong to assume that a doctor or institution shall deliberately risk its reputation by engaging in rash and negligent medical practices.In doing so the court observed that the "risk of professional ruin, economic decline, and eventual institutional collapse" are factors that act as a natural deterrent against any wilful lapse in the standard of care on the doctors/medical institutions part. The Court was hearing petitions moved by four doctors for quashing of an FIR under BNS Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) wherein the complainant alleged "grave medical negligence" in her treatment including omission of pre-operative tests, delayed critical diagnostics and improper post-operative care, which allegedly resulted in death of complainant's daughter-in-law, who was hospitalised to a hospital in Jodhpur for minor uterine fibroid surgery.Doctors guided by clinical interest of patient and by reputational constraintsJustice Farjand Ali in his order said:"this Court is also mindful of the fact that the reputation and functional credibility of private medical institutions are inherently tied to their standards of care and patient outcomes. In the modern healthcare ecosystem, no private hospital or its professional staff can reasonably be presumed to operate with a wilful disregard for human life, especially when such conduct would directly undermine their institutional standing, public trust, and economic viability. A medical practitioner operating within a private setup is guided not merely by the clinical interest of the patient but also by the ethical and reputational constraints of the institution under whose aegis he functions. It must further be appreciated that a single adverse outcome, if even remotely attributable to a negligent act, has the potential to cause irreparable damage to the professional standing of both the doctor and the hospital"The court observed that in the health care sector where public confidence serves as the cornerstone of survival, the mere perception of substandard care can derail years of "painstakingly built credibility". It observed that private healthcare institutions operate not just as treatment facilities but as "trust-based service entities" which are heavily reliant on "goodwill, word-of-mouth, and community validation".Risk of doctor's professional ruin acts a natural deterrent against wilful lapse in care"The inflow of patients, which sustains the operational and financial viability of such institutions, is directly proportional to the public's perception of their clinical integrity. Consequently, even from a purely pragmatic or commercial standpoint, it defies logic to assume that a doctor or institution would deliberately risk such reputational capital by engaging in rash or negligent medical practices. The risk of professional ruin, economic decline, and eventual institutional collapse acts as a natural deterrent against any willful lapse in the standard of care. Indeed, the very business model of private healthcare is predicated on the maintenance of —professional goodwill and ethical reliability. The erosion of this trust, through real or perceived negligence, would cause a rapid attrition of patient inflow, leading not only to financial instability but to the eventual dismantling of the entire clinical establishment. Thus, the likelihood of a private medical practitioner, knowingly or recklessly, compromising patient care is not merely implausible—it is antithetical to both professional instinct and institutional self-preservation". The court thus observed that it is "inconceivable" that a licensed and qualified medical professional, having undergone rigorous academic training and extensive clinical exposure over several years, would "intentionally" pursue a line of treatment with the objective of "endangering human life".Doctor took decision in real time without any criminal intentWith respect to the case at hand the court perused the record and said that it unequivocally reflected that the concerned attending physician, confronted with a critical and dynamically evolving clinical scenario, exercised his judgment in "real time, acting with the singular intent to preserve and restore the patient's health". "The actions undertaken were rooted in his medical wisdom and situational appraisal, not in any form of disregard for the patient's well-being. Whether the chosen course of treatment ultimately succeeded or failed pertains to the unpredictability inherent in medical science and the complexity of human physiology—not to any criminal malintent. Medical decisions taken within the four walls of an operation theatre are often made under acute pressure, with constrained time and information, and under conditions where...

Doctors Won't Presumably Commit 'Medical Negligence' As It Can Ruin Their Professional And Economic Stability: Rajasthan HC Quashes FIR

Nupur Agrawal

Tags