New Legislation: Doctors Liable to Face Two Years Imprisonment for Negligence Resulting in Death

Recently, there has been discussion and disagreement about the implications of the modified Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023 (BNSS) for situations of medical negligence that result in death. The modified legislation does not grant doctors a blanket exemption in such circumstances, notwithstanding previous claims made by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Rather, it sets a two-year maximum sentence for jail, which is different from the more general regulations for other cases of carelessness that result in death. The objective of this article is to examine the subtleties of the amendment, investigate its consequences for medical professionals, and assess the wider ramifications for India’s legal system.

Section 106(1) of the BNSS, which outlines the penalties for acts of rashness or negligence that result in death, contains the main modification. Although a maximum five-year prison sentence is prescribed for similar actions under the general rule, the amendment adds a specific language that applies to medical practitioners. It specifies that the maximum penalty is lowered to two years in prison if the irresponsible act that results in death is carried out by a licensed medical professional while performing a medical procedure.

This distinction highlights the understanding of the special conditions pertaining to the practice of medicine as well as the possible difficulties in assigning blame in cases of medical malpractice. The legislation aims to achieve a balance between accountability and acknowledging the inherent risks and uncertainties associated with medical operations by lowering the maximum punishment for doctors.

The BNSS modification has important ramifications for physicians and the judicial system that oversees medical malpractice claims in India. On the one hand, it recognizes the necessity for justice and accountability when medical malpractice results in fatalities. By exposing medical professionals to possible criminal penalties, the law emphasizes how serious the obligations that come with practicing medicine are.

Nonetheless, the clause lowering the maximum penalty for physicians acknowledges the particular difficulties and complications that they must deal with. Determining precise lines of responsibility in situations of unfavorable events can be difficult because medical practice frequently entails inherent risks, uncertainties, and unpredictable outcomes. The amendment recognizes that punitive actions might not be sufficient to solve the underlying systemic challenges that contribute to medical errors, and it aims to strike a balance between understanding and accountability.

Moreover, the inclusion of particular requirements for the definition of a “registered medical practitioner” emphasizes how crucial professional credentials and compliance with regulations are in establishing culpability. The purpose of the legislation is to protect qualified and licensed practitioners from potential criminal culpability by clearly defining eligibility requirements.