"considerationd whend thed charged ind ad criminald Courtd consistsd ofd criminald

negligence.
Whered negligenced isd and essentiald ingredientd ofd thed offence,d thed
negligenced tod be
establishedd byd thed prosecutiond mustd bed culpabled ord grossd andd notd thed
negligence
merelyd basedd upond and errord ofd judgment.
[sd 304A.9.1]d Bolamd Test.—
Thed testd ford determiningd medicald negligenced asd laidd downd ind Bolamd vd
Friernd Hospital
Managementd Committee,

432.d holdsd goodd ind itsd applicabilityd ind India.

433.d Ind thed Bolam

case,d itd wasd heldd that:

Whered youd getd ad situationd whichd involvesd thed used ofd somed speciald skilld
ord competence,d then
thed testd asd tod whetherd thered hasd beend negligenced ord notd isd notd thed
testd ofd thed mand ond thed top
ofd ad Claphamd omnibus,d becaused hed hasd notd gotd thisd speciald skill.d Thed
testd isd thed standardd of
thed ordinaryd skilledd mand exercisingd andd professingd tod haved thatd speciald
skill...d Ad mand need
notd possessd thed highestd expertd skill;d itd isd welld establishedd lawd thatd
itd isd sufficientd ifd he
exercisesd thed ordinaryd skilld ofd and ordinaryd competentd mand exercisingd
thatd particulard art.
Ind manyd cases,d thed Supremed Courtd approvedd andd appliedd thisd testd ford
determiningd the
negligence.d Ind Jacobd Mathewd vd Stated ofd Punjab,

434.d thed Supremed Courtd observed:

Thed waterd ofd Bolamd testd hasd everd sinced flownd andd passedd underd severald
bridges,d having
beend citedd andd dealtd withd ind severald judiciald pronouncements,d oned afterd
thed otherd andd has

continuedd tod bed welld receivedd byd everyd shored itd hasd touchedd asd neat,d
cleand andd well-
condensedd one.

Whend ad patientd agreesd tod god ford medicald treatmentd ord surgicald
operation,d everyd careless
actd ofd thed medicald mand cannotd bed termedd asd 'criminal.'d Itd cand bed
termedd 'criminal'd only
whend thed medicald mand exhibitsd ad grossd lackd ofd competenced ord inactiond
andd wanton
indifferenced tod hisd patient'sd safetyd andd whichd isd foundd tod haved arisend
fromd gross
ignoranced ord grossd negligence.d Whered ad patient'sd deathd resultsd merelyd
fromd errord of
judgmentd ord and accident,d nod criminald liabilityd shouldd bed attachedd tod
it.d Mere
inadvertenced ord somed degreed ofd wantd ofd adequated cared andd cautiond mightd
created civil
liabilityd butd wouldd notd sufficed tod holdd himd criminallyd liable.
435.d Negligenced cannotd be
attributedd tod ad doctord sod longd asd hed performsd hisd dutiesd withd
reasonabled skilld and
competence.d Merelyd becaused thed doctord choosesd oned coursed ofd actiond ind
preferenced to
thed otherd oned available,d hed wouldd notd bed liabled ifd thed coursed ofd
actiond chosend byd him
wasd acceptabled tod thed medicald profession.

436.d Ind Sureshd Guptad (Dr)d vd Govtd ofd NCTd of

Delhi,
437.d thed Apexd Courtd heldd thatd whered thed medicald practitionerd failedd tod
take
appropriated steps,d viz.,d "notd puttingd ad cuffedd endotracheald tubed ofd
properd size"d sod asd to
preventd aspirationd ofd bloodd blockingd respiratoryd passage,d thed actd
attributedd tod himd may
bed describedd asd negligentd actd butd notd sod recklessd asd tod maked himd
criminallyd liable.
[sd 304A.10]d Dutyd ofd thed Investigatingd Officer.—
Ad doctord accusedd ofd rashnessd ord negligenced mayd notd bed arrestedd ind ad
routined manner
(simplyd becaused ad charged hasd beend levelledd againstd him).d Unlessd hisd
arrestd is
necessaryd ford furtheringd thed investigationd ord ford collectingd evidenced ord
unlessd the
investigatingd officerd feelsd satisfiedd thatd thed doctord proceededd againstd
wouldd notd make
himselfd availabled tod faced thed prosecutiond unlessd arrested,d thed arrestd
mayd be
withheld.
438.
[sd 304A.11]d Privated Complaint.—"