Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab Case Law
Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab , 2005 is a landmark case in the context of medical negligence. Supreme Court uphold bolam test in this case.
The case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) is a significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India that deals with the issue of medical negligence.
Jacob Mathew, a senior doctor, was accused of causing the death of a patient due to negligence. The patient’s family alleged that the doctors failed to provide timely and adequate treatment. Specifically, it was claimed that there was no oxygen cylinder available when the patient needed it, and when one was brought, it was found to be empty.
Fact of the case:
- The incident occurred on February 28, 1995, when a patient named J.S. Bhalla, who was admitted to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, was under the care of Dr. Jacob Mathew and another doctor.
- The patient was admitted for terminal cancer treatment and was experiencing breathing difficulties. He needed oxygen support.
- The primary allegation was that when the patient’s condition worsened and he needed immediate oxygen, the oxygen cylinder in the room was found to be empty.
- When another cylinder was brought, it too did not function as required, leading to a delay in providing oxygen support to the patient.
- This delay was alleged to have caused the death of the patient.
- Following the patient’s death, a complaint was filed by his son, alleging medical negligence on the part of the doctors, including Dr. Jacob Mathew.
- The trial court took cognizance of the complaint and framed charges against the doctors under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Main Issue Invovled:
- Existence of Negligence:
- Whether there was negligence on the part of Dr. Jacob Mathew and whether it could be considered gross negligence or recklessness.
- Standard of Care:
- The Court analyzed the standard of care expected from medical professionals and whether the doctors acted within the scope of accepted medical practice.
- Criminal Liability:
- Whether the alleged negligence met the threshold of criminal negligence under
Judgment:
No Criminal Negligence:
- The Supreme Court concluded that there was no gross negligence or recklessness on the part of Dr. Jacob Mathew that would warrant criminal liability.
- The failure of the oxygen cylinder was deemed an unfortunate event but not a result of reckless or grossly negligent behavior.
Bolam Test Application:
- The doctors had acted in accordance with the medical standards of the time, and mere error in judgment or an accident did not constitute criminal negligence.
Criminal Liability:
Court held that doctor cannot be charged for Sec. 304 of IPC, though a civil suit on the hospital can be filed for the damages.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab acquitted Dr. Jacob Mathew, setting a precedent for future cases involving medical negligence. The judgment reinforced the importance of adhering to medical standards and provided a framework for determining criminal liability in medical negligence cases.
You May Also Like:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS TORT | APPLICATION OF TORT LAW
Economic Tort | Business Tort: Application of Tort Law
Difference between intention and motive | In Tabular Format
Bolam Test | Bolam V. Friern Hospital Committee | Medical Negligence
Indian Penal Code MCQs Quiz: Section 1 to 5
Indian Panel Code MCQs Quiz on Section 511 and Attempt
IPC MCQs Quiz on Sec. 76 and Sec. 79 | Quiz on Mistake
Practice IPC MCQs online for free (Section 78)
Practice IPC MCQs Quiz for free | Section 81 MCQs | Necessity
Practice IPC MCQs online for free : Infancy (section 82-83)
Practice IPC MCQs Quiz for free | Section 81 MCQs | Necessity
Practice IPC MCQs Quiz for free | Section 84 MCQs | Insanity
Specific Principles of Criminal Law | LLM Previous Year Paper 2024 | CCSU
Specific Torts | LLM 4th Semester Previous Year Paper 2024 | CCSU
History and Basic Principles of Criminal Law | Previous Paper 2023
LLM Previous Year Paper 2023 | PRIVILEGED CLASS DEVIANCE
PENOLOGY PREVIOUS YEAR PAPER | LLM | CCSU
LLB Previous Year Paper 2023 | Constitutional Law II | CCSU
LLB Previous Year Paper 2023 | Legal and Constitutional History | CCSU
LLB Previous Year Paper 2023 | Jurisprudence II | CCSU
LLB Hindu Law Previous Year Paper 2023 | CCSU
LLB Hindu Law Previous Year Paper 2024| CCSU
Euthanasia in India, Right to die with Dignity
Right to Privacy Case Law Mr. X vs. Hospital Z
Federal Constitution Definition and key points
University of Madras vs. Shantabai,1954: Article 12 Case Law
Article 20 Fundamental Right with Case Laws
Article 19 Fundamental Right of Indian Constitution with 10 Case Laws
Article 358, 359 Fundamental rights during emergency
Parliamentary Privileges and Fundamental Rights with Case Laws
Article 14 Fundamental Right with Case Laws
Article 15 Fundamental Right with Case Laws
Article 12 Fundamental Right with Case Laws
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS TORT | APPLICATION OF TORT LAW
Crimes without Mens Rea? Statute without Mens Rea.
Definition of crime by various jurists, Criminology
Methods of Studying Criminology
All about Capital Punishment with Case Laws
IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPT | ATTEMPT VS IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPT
Difference between Preparation and Attempt
Tests to Determine Attempt and preparation | With Case Laws
Difference between intention and motive | In Tabular Format
Specific Principles of Criminal Law | LLM Previous Year Paper 2024 | CCSU
Specific Torts | LLM 4th Semester Previous Year Paper 2024 | CCSU
History and Basic Principles of Criminal Law | Previous Paper 2023
LLM Previous Year Paper 2023 | PRIVILEGED CLASS DEVIANCE
PENOLOGY PREVIOUS YEAR PAPER | LLM | CCSU
LLB Previous Year Paper 2023 | Constitutional Law II | CCSU
Forms of Judicial Process: Adversarial & Inquisitorial
Crimes without Mens Rea? Statute without Mens Rea.
IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPT | ATTEMPT VS IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPT
Mistake of Fact Vs. Mistake of Law | Sec. 76 of IPC
Leave a Reply