CASE ANALYSIS

JACOB MATHEW VS STATE OF PUNJAB1

Title of the Case: Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab

Bench: CJI R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan

Citation: AIR2005SC3180; (2005)6 SCC1; 2005 CriLJ 3710

Date of Judgment: 05-08-2005

Important Laws Covered in this Case: -

 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short IPC)
 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.1973
 Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,1860
 Sections 336/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short IPC)
 Section 304-A Indian Penal Code,1860
 Consumer Protection Act,1986

Background of the Case: -

 The appellant, Dr. Jacob Mathew, was accused of medical negligence in treating a patient,
which was the major fact in the case's background. The patient, who was injured in his
leg, was brought to the hospital where Dr. Jacob worked. When the patient's condition
worsened, he was eventually sent to another hospital, where he died. The appellant was

1
Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
 sued by the patient's family, who claimed that the doctor had done an act of negligence
while treating their patient.2

Journey through the Courts: -

 The Trial Court
The two accused individuals, who are both doctors, were charged under Section 304A of the IPC
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class of Ludhiana. In a revised filing, they both told the Court of
Sessions Judge that there was no basis for filing charges against them. The revision was not
accepted.

 High Court
Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant petitioned the High Court to
have the FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed. The High Court was presented with a
submission stating that the copious number of documents that made up the police's challan
papers against the accused did not specifically allege any act of omission or commission against
them.
According to the learned single judge who heard the petition, a case to quash the charge was not
made out because the appellant's plea could have been raised in defence during the trial. The
High Court denied the petition. A recall request for the order above was made, but it was also
denied.

 Supreme Court
The appellant filed these appeals by special leave because they felt wronged by these two orders.

Facts of the Case: -

 Ashok Kumar Sharma, the Informant herein filed a First Information Report with the
police station, Division No. 3, Ludhiana, acting upon which an offence under Section
304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") was registered.
 In summary, the informant's father, the late Jiwan Lal Sharma, was admitted as a patient
to a private ward of the CMC Hospital in Ludhiana on 15.2.1995. At about 11 p.m. on
February 22, 1995, Jiwan Lal started having breathing problems. Being in the room, the

2
BARE LAW “Case brief of Jacob Mathew v. state of Punjab” (2020), <https://www.barelaw.in/case-brief-of-jacob-
mathew-v-state-of-punjab-2005-6-scc-1 /> Last Visited 5th Feb ,2024
 complainant's older brother Vijay Sharma called the duty nurse, who then called a doctor
to treat the patient. For twenty to twenty-five minutes, no doctor appeared.
 The patient's room was then visited by Dr. Allen Joseph and Dr. Jacob Mathew, the
appellant who was before us. After an oxygen cylinder was brought and placed in the
patient's mouth, the breathing issue got worse. The patient attempted to stand up, but the
doctors ordered him to stay in bed. It was discovered that the oxygen cylinder was empty.
 In the room, there was only one gas cylinder available. Vijay Sharma went into the room
next door and came back with a gas cylinder. Nevertheless, there was no plan in place to
turn on the gas cylinder, so five to seven minutes were lost in between.
 The latter part of the FIR states (as per the translation in English as filed by the
complainant) that the death of my father occurred due to the carelessness of doctors and
nurses and the non-availability of an oxygen cylinder and the empty cylinder was fixed
on the mouth of my father and his breathing was stopped hence my father died. I sent the
dead body of my father to my village for the last cremation and for information I have
come to you. Suitable action be done Sd/- ---- As per the statement of the intimator the
death of Jiwan Lal Sharma has occurred due to the carelessness of doctors and nurses
concerned and to fit an empty gas cylinder."3

Issues In the Case: -

 Is there a difference in civil and criminal law on the concept of negligence? and;
 whether a different standard applicable for recording a finding of negligence when a
professional, in particular, a doctor is to be held guilty of negligence?

Arguments Raised by the Petitioner: -

 Since their reputation is on the line and they have to cure and heal their patients, no
professional doctor would attempt to harm a patient. One mistake could have a
catastrophic effect on their career.
 The principle of res ipsa loquitur, which states that "the matter speaks for itself," is not
always applicable in civil jurisdictions. It must be applied extremely carefully and
cautiously when dealing with cases of professional negligence, especially involving
doctors.
 A doctor assumes complete responsibility for their patients and so benefits nothing from
any mistakes or omissions made on their part. In that case, criminal charges are brought

3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, “Jacob matthew v. state of Punjab” (2004)
<https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/27088.pdf> Last Visited 6th Feb,2024
 against the practitioner. Unintentional and unplanned accidents occurred during the
course.4

Conclusions of the Arguments: -

 Analyzing the Facts and Circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Supreme Court made
certain conclusions: -
(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something that a reasonable
man guided by those considerations that ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs
would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The
definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice
G.P. Singh), holds good.

(2) Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission
amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of
negligence are three: ‘duty’, ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’.

(3) Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with
a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a
doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different
from one of professional negligence.

(4) A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on
the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the
medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a
better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a
more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or
procedure which the accused followed.

(5) When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those
precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient;
a failure to use extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular
happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence.

(6) So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the
light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial.
Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular
equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that
particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have
been used.

4
LAW LEX, “Case summary: Jacob matthew v. state of Punjab”(2020), <https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-
summary-jacob-mathew-vs-state-of-punjab/24430 >Last Visited 6th Feb,2024
 (7) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was
not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not
exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.
The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or
not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that
profession. Every professional can't possess the highest level of expertise or skills in the
branch in which he practices.

(8) A highly skilled professional may possess of better qualities, but that cannot be made the
basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against
on indictment of negligence.5

(9) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam’s case [1957] 1
W.L.R. 582, 5866 holds good in its applicability in India.

(10) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What
may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For
negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For
an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher
i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher
degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for
prosecution.

(11) The word ‘gross’ has not been used in Section 304A of IPC, yet it is settled that in
criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as
to be ‘gross’. The expression ‘rash or negligent act’ as occurring in Section 304A of the
IPC has to be read as qualified by the word ‘grossly’.

(12) To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be
shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts
and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would
have done or failed to do. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a
nature that the injury which resulted was most likely imminent.

(13) Res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of evidence and operates in the domain of civil law,
especially in cases of torts and helps in determining the onus of proof in actions relating
to negligence. It cannot be pressed in service for determining per se the liability for
negligence within the domain of criminal law. Res ipsa loquitur has if at all, a limited
application in trial on a charge of criminal negligence.

5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, “Jacob matthew v. state of Punjab” (2004)
<https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/27088.pdf> Last Visited 6th Feb,2024
6
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 582, 586
Decision: -
 "Even if found to be true, we are confident that none of the allegations in the complaint
establish the accused appellant's criminal recklessness or negligence. The complainant
does not assert that the accused-appellant lacked medical qualifications to treat the patient
for whom he had accepted a patient's care.
 This is an instance of an oxygen cylinder not being available, either because the hospital
neglected to keep one on hand or because the gas cylinder was discovered to be empty.
Therefore, based on the parameters of Bolam's test, the accused-appellant cannot be
prosecuted under Section 304A IPC, even though the hospital may be liable in civil law.
The Conviction of the appellant's accused under Section 304A/34 IPC is quashed.”7

Referred Judgements: -
 Dr Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.8
 R. v. Lawrence9
 R. v. Caldwell10
 Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions11
 Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka12
 Reg v. Idu Beg13
 Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra14
 Michael Hyde and Associates v. J.D. Williams & Co. Ltd.15
 Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee16
 Eckersley v. Binnie17
 Hucks v. Cole18

7
THE LAW MATICS “Jacob matthew v. state of Punjab: an analysis” (2010), <https://thelawmatics.in/jacob-
matthew-v-state-of-punjab-an-analysis/> Last visited 6th Feb 2024
8
Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 422
9
R. v. Lawrence, [1981] 1 All ER 974 (HL)
10
R. v. Caldwell 1981(1) All ER 961 (HL)
11
Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1937] A.C. 576
12
Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30
13
Reg v. Idu Beg (1881) 3 All. 776
14
Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra 1968 Mh.L.J. 423
15
Michael Hyde and Associates v. J.D. Williams & Co. Ltd. [2001] P.N.L.R. 233
16
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, 586
17
Eckersley v. Binnie, [1988] 18 Con.L.R. 1, 79
18
Hucks v. Cole [1968] 118 New LJ 469
  Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority19
 Hunter v. Hanley20
 Krishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala21
 John Oni Akerele v. The King22
 Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra23
 Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap24
 Kishan Chand & Anr. v. The State of Haryana25
 Juggankhan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh26
 Dr Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr.27
 Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Ors.28
 Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel and Ors.29
 Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.30
 M/s Spring Meadows Hospital and Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and Anr.31
 State of Haryana and Ors. v. Smt. Santra32

19
Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority [1985] 1 All ER 635 (HL)

20
Hunter v. Hanley 1955 SLT 213
21
Krishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala (1996) 10 SCC 508
22
John Oni Akerele v. The King AIR 1943 PC 72
23
Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra (1965) 2 SCR 622
24
Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap 4 Bom LR 679
25
Kishan Chand & Anr. v. The State of Haryana (1970) 3 SCC 904
26
Juggankhan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1965) 1 SCR 14
27
Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr. (1969) 1 SCR 206
28
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 651
29
Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 332
30
Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 634
31
M/s Spring Meadows Hospital and Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 39
32
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Smt. Santra, (2000) 5 SCC 182