Medical Negligence and Right to Treatment: New Precedents

Introduction 

Medical Negligence, the failure to care which results in preventable harm, continues to be a  significant point of intersection between Private healthcare, State Responsibility, and  Individual rights. Indian courts have ruled time and again that victims of careless medical  treatment are entitled to remedies, including compensation, and that the right to health is  derived from the fundamental right to life under Article 21. This article explains the practical  implications for victims and providers in 2025, summarizes the legal framework, and highlights  recent judicial trends from 2024 to 2025. 

Legal Base for Right to Health 

• Constitutional Right to Health: The Supreme Court has continuously stated that the  Right to Health is an integral part of the Right to Life mentioned in Article 21 of the  Indian Constitution. This law is not for a specific sector, but both the Public and Private  healthcare sectors are bound by it. 
• Civil and Consumer Remedies: Since the landmark judgment of Indian Medical  Association vs. V.P. Shantha (1995), every medical applicability (excluding the free  governmental medical aid) is considered as “Services” according to the Consumer  Protection Act. This gives the people the liberty to file a complaint and seek  compensation if required. 
• Criminal Liability: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) section 106 prevents doctors  and medical practitioners from acting negligently in their duty. However, more than  Civil liability, criminal liability demands more proof in courts. 

The Principles of Medical Negligence 

The Indian courts have established 4 core principles in accordance with Medical Negligence,  which are: 

• Duty of Care: A doctor has a reasonable obligation to care for the patients 
• Breach of Duty: When the doctor has neglected to provide reasonable care that he  should have provided 
• Causation: The negligent act must have directly caused harm 
• Damages: The patient must have suffered a loss, disability, or injury 

In 2025, the courts established the fact that not all adverse outcomes result in negligence; rather,  records and proofs should show the deviation of the practitioner, which amounts to it. 

Latest Precedents and Judicial Trends 

• Compensation as a remedy: In a recent case in 2025, the Chhattisgarh Govt. has  compensated a family with Rs 16 Lakh for a patient who died due to a post-operative complication. The court has also stated that compensation is not a full relief, but a  substantive right of the victim and their family. 
• Poor Records of the Services amount to negligence: The court stressed that the failure  to maintain proper records also amounts to negligence. In a recent case, it was held that  the hospitals that cannot disclose the treatment details were held liable, demanding  transparency in their practices. 
• Balance between patient rights and doctors’ protection: In February 2025, the  Supreme Court quashed a compensation claim as there was no evidence stating the  breach of duty, noting “unfortunate outcomes are not in themselves proof of  negligence.” This protects the doctors who haven’t acted in negligence and prevents the  patients from claiming without reason. 
• Public Duty to Strengthen Healthcare: In May 2025, the Supreme Court stated that  the State must ensure accessible and quality healthcare facilities. Therefore, making the  Right to Health a Constitutional guarantee. 

A review of Indian decisions on criminal negligence 

In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. The Court noted that, in  the very nature of the medical profession, skills differ from doctor to doctor, and more than one  alternative course of treatment is available, all of which are admissible. Negligence cannot be  attributed to a doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability and with  due care and caution. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to  the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was  acceptable to the medical profession. It was a case where a mop was left inside the lady patient’s  abdomen during an operation. Peritonitis developed, which led to a second surgery being  performed on her, but she could not survive. Liability for negligence was fastened on the  surgeon because no valid explanation was forthcoming for the mop having been left inside the  abdomen of the lady. The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur was held applicable ‘in a case like this’. 

Compensation Framework 

The compensation will be calculated in reference to the following parameters:

• Medical expenses of the past and future treatments 
• Loss of earning capacity (if death or disability) 
• Pain, suffering, and other mental traumas of the patient or the family
• Loss of Consortium (fatal cases) 

The court also has the discretion to award interest on compensation and litigation costs. In a  recent case, the compensation increased as the hospital suppressed the record and gave an  inconsistent explanation.

Practical suggestions 

For Patients/Victims: Preserve all bills, prescriptions, discharge summaries, and obtain early  medical-legal evaluations. Documentary proof is critical to a successful claim. 

For Advocates: Practitioner testimony, evidence of the cause, and highlighting the record  occurrence are essential for the proceedings. 

For Healthcare Providers: Abide by the protocols, get consent, and record-keeping and  indemnity insurance are mandatory to protect against negligence. 

Conclusion 

The courts have firmly started to protect the Right to Health, a constitutional guarantee in India.  A meaningful compensation is awarded to the victims, and at the same time, doctors who act  with diligence are also protected from unreasonable agony. This shows that the negligence law  in India is moving towards providing justice to individuals and also demanding systematic  accountability, ensuring Healthcare as a Constitutional right and not a commercial privilege. 

Importantly, these precedents indicate that healthcare is not to be seen merely as a service  transaction but as a public good, where accountability and compassion go hand in hand. The  coming years may see stronger enforcement of hospital record-keeping, mandatory insurance  for medical establishments, and a clearer balance between patient protection and medical  autonomy. For India, the legal trend is steadily shaping a framework where justice is not only  corrective but also preventive, encouraging transparency and fairness in the healthcare system.