Re: Provisions under IPC for negligence and the escape route

[Guest guest]

Dear Members

Greeting from Nepal

Thanks for initiating quite interesting discussion on Medical Negligence.

The fundamental meaning and spirit of the terms Negligence and Unintentional is completely opposite to each other like two banks of the rivers never coincide. So unintentional and good faith action should not be comes in the periphery of the negligence, Negligence is negligence and sufferer should be properly compensated.

We do have some positive court cases in Nepal where a hospital and/or a doctors have paid compensation to the Victim. Of course the loss of life could never be compensated but there should be compensatory mechanism.

It will be good, if we initiate the successful cases and issues of medical negligence that have compensated and resolved along with its clear description would be very interesting and lesson learning for all of us.

Ram Charitra Sah

CEPHED

Kathmandu, Nepal

From: Dr Geer M Ishaq <ishaqgeer@...>Subject: Provisions under IPC for negligence and the escape routenetrum Received: Monday, 4 July, 2011, 2:56 AM

Dear Members:I wish to draw your kind attention towards Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which stipulates a term of two year imprisonment with fine or both for criminal medical negligence wherein death of a person is caused by some rash or negligent act. There is a provision of arrest too. Sections 337 and 338 of IPC on the other hand cover serious injury excepting death wherein there is no provision of arrest. However usually these cases fail in the court of law when the erring physician proves under section 80 of IPC that whatever happened to the patient has happened as a result of some accident or misfortune. There is another escape route provided under section 88 of IPC wherein a doctor can prove that the (negligent) act was unintentional and done in good faith. Your comments are solicited on this.With Regards Dr Geer M Ishaq