The Supreme Court of India has recently acquitted a senior anaesthetist involved in a criminal negligence case related to the death of a patient. This decision effectively concludes the legal proceedings against Dr. Supriya Kumari, who faced allegations of medical negligence. The case centered around a telephone instruction she allegedly gave to a nurse to administer an injection, which was followed by the patient’s demise. This ruling, delivered on May 25, was presided over by Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale.
In the case, Supriya Kumari M.C. v State of Kerala, the bench ruled that an anaesthetist, who was not on duty, could not be held criminally responsible for errors reportedly made by a nurse. The court emphasized that the prosecution’s assertion that Dr. Kumari provided the instruction was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, even if the claim were valid, the advice over the phone to administer a painkiller was deemed routine and fell short of gross criminal negligence.
The court elaborated that assuming the anaesthetist responded to an emergency call and suggested a painkiller, the responsibility lay with the hospital staff to execute this standard post-operative care appropriately. The prescribed medication, sensorcaine, was acknowledged as the correct analgesic, and any mishap was attributed to the mechanical execution of the procedure by the nurse, which was beyond Dr. Kumari’s control. The bench noted, “The failure of the nurse to accurately locate the epidural space might represent a deficiency in service (civil liability), but it fundamentally lacks the gross culpability or mens rea required to invoke Section 304-A IPC.”
Dr. Kumari’s appeal challenged a Kerala High Court decision that refused to dismiss the criminal proceedings. The incident involved the death of KP Muralidhar, following a surgical procedure in May 2002, where post-operative complications arose. The autopsy later revealed a significant coronary artery blockage leading to acute coronary insufficiency.
Initially, the First Information Report (FIR) targeted only the surgeon, but subsequent investigations expanded the charges to include the anaesthetist and the nurse under Sections 304-A (causing death by negligence) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Meanwhile, the patient’s family pursued parallel proceedings, leading to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Kannur absolving Dr. Kumari of any direct instruction to the nurse and holding the hospital accountable instead.
More Read
Despite Dr. Kumari’s efforts to contest her charges before the trial and sessions courts, both were unsuccessful. However, the Supreme Court’s recent judgment underscores the necessity for concrete evidence of gross negligence to uphold a charge under Section 304-A IPC, a standard not met in this case. The court highlighted the absence of a direct causative link between Dr. Kumari’s actions and the patient’s death, further supported by the post-mortem findings of an undiagnosed 80% blockage in the coronary artery.
The ruling also critiqued the expert panel reviewing the case for lacking an anaesthetist, rendering it inadequate to assess the technical complexities involved. As such, the bench concluded that the appellant’s actions were too distantly related to the cause of death to warrant criminal liability. Thus, the Supreme Court discharged Dr. Kumari, closing a significant chapter in a prolonged legal journey.
