Abstract

The evolution of medico-legal jurisprudence in India reflects a dynamic interplay between judicial interpretation and legislative silence. Rooted in the common law tradition, Indian courts—particularly the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)—have played a pivotal role in establishing legal standards on medical negligence and patient rights. In the absence of specific statutory provisions, the judiciary has extended constitutional mandates, such as Article 142, to deliver complete justice in sensitive medical disputes. Landmark rulings such as Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Kunal Saha v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee have redefined the legal status of medical services under the Consumer Protection Act and imposed a duty of care on healthcare professionals. These cases underscore the courts’ willingness to recognize both civil and criminal liability in cases of gross negligence. Judicial doctrines like res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se have been invoked to strengthen patient claims. Despite these advances, the medico-legal framework in India suffers from inconsistencies, particularly in determining compensation and the absence of a clear regulatory mechanism for judicial reliance on expert medical opinion. The lack of uniform standards has led to widely fluctuating awards in damages, raising concerns of judicial arbitrariness. This study highlights the judiciary’s dual role as a protector of patient rights and a cautious guardian of the medical profession. It calls for structured reforms, including independent medico-legal tribunals, clearer definitions of the doctor-patient relationship, and standardized compensation guidelines. A balanced and systematic approach is essential to ensure justice for patients while maintaining the integrity and accountability of medical practitioners in India’s evolving healthcare landscape.

Keywords