"considerationv whenv thev chargev inv av criminalv Courtv consistsv ofv criminalv

negligence.
Wherev negligencev isv anv essentialv ingredientv ofv thev offence,v thev
negligencev tov be
establishedv byv thev prosecutionv mustv bev culpablev orv grossv andv notv thev
negligence
merelyv basedv uponv anv errorv ofv judgment.
[sv 304A.9.1]v Bolamv Test.—
Thev testv forv determiningv medicalv negligencev asv laidv downv inv Bolamv vv
Friernv Hospital
Managementv Committee,

432.v holdsv goodv inv itsv applicabilityv inv India.

433.v Inv thev Bolam

case,v itv wasv heldv that:

Wherev youv getv av situationv whichv involvesv thev usev ofv somev specialv skillv
orv competence,v then
thev testv asv tov whetherv therev hasv beenv negligencev orv notv isv notv thev
testv ofv thev manv onv thev top
ofv av Claphamv omnibus,v becausev hev hasv notv gotv thisv specialv skill.v Thev
testv isv thev standardv of
thev ordinaryv skilledv manv exercisingv andv professingv tov havev thatv specialv
skill...v Av manv need
notv possessv thev highestv expertv skill;v itv isv wellv establishedv lawv thatv
itv isv sufficientv ifv he
exercisesv thev ordinaryv skillv ofv anv ordinaryv competentv manv exercisingv
thatv particularv art.
Inv manyv cases,v thev Supremev Courtv approvedv andv appliedv thisv testv forv
determiningv the
negligence.v Inv Jacobv Mathewv vv Statev ofv Punjab,

434.v thev Supremev Courtv observed:

Thev waterv ofv Bolamv testv hasv everv sincev flownv andv passedv underv severalv
bridges,v having
beenv citedv andv dealtv withv inv severalv judicialv pronouncements,v onev afterv
thev otherv andv has

continuedv tov bev wellv receivedv byv everyv shorev itv hasv touchedv asv neat,v
cleanv andv well-
condensedv one.

Whenv av patientv agreesv tov gov forv medicalv treatmentv orv surgicalv
operation,v everyv careless
actv ofv thev medicalv manv cannotv bev termedv asv 'criminal.'v Itv canv bev
termedv 'criminal'v only
whenv thev medicalv manv exhibitsv av grossv lackv ofv competencev orv inactionv
andv wanton
indifferencev tov hisv patient'sv safetyv andv whichv isv foundv tov havev arisenv
fromv gross
ignorancev orv grossv negligence.v Wherev av patient'sv deathv resultsv merelyv
fromv errorv of
judgmentv orv anv accident,v nov criminalv liabilityv shouldv bev attachedv tov
it.v Mere
inadvertencev orv somev degreev ofv wantv ofv adequatev carev andv cautionv mightv
createv civil
liabilityv butv wouldv notv sufficev tov holdv himv criminallyv liable.
435.v Negligencev cannotv be
attributedv tov av doctorv sov longv asv hev performsv hisv dutiesv withv
reasonablev skillv and
competence.v Merelyv becausev thev doctorv choosesv onev coursev ofv actionv inv
preferencev to
thev otherv onev available,v hev wouldv notv bev liablev ifv thev coursev ofv
actionv chosenv byv him
wasv acceptablev tov thev medicalv profession.

436.v Inv Sureshv Guptav (Dr)v vv Govtv ofv NCTv of

Delhi,
437.v thev Apexv Courtv heldv thatv wherev thev medicalv practitionerv failedv tov
take
appropriatev steps,v viz.,v "notv puttingv av cuffedv endotrachealv tubev ofv
properv size"v sov asv to
preventv aspirationv ofv bloodv blockingv respiratoryv passage,v thev actv
attributedv tov himv may
bev describedv asv negligentv actv butv notv sov recklessv asv tov makev himv
criminallyv liable.
[sv 304A.10]v Dutyv ofv thev Investigatingv Officer.—
Av doctorv accusedv ofv rashnessv orv negligencev mayv notv bev arrestedv inv av
routinev manner
(simplyv becausev av chargev hasv beenv levelledv againstv him).v Unlessv hisv
arrestv is
necessaryv forv furtheringv thev investigationv orv forv collectingv evidencev orv
unlessv the
investigatingv officerv feelsv satisfiedv thatv thev doctorv proceededv againstv
wouldv notv make
himselfv availablev tov facev thev prosecutionv unlessv arrested,v thev arrestv
mayv be
withheld.
438.
[sv 304A.11]v Privatev Complaint.—"