A surgeon performs laparoscopic cholecystectomy and inadvertently clips the common bile duct. The patient develops obstructive jaundice requiring re-operation. Assuming the surgeon followed a standard technique and the clip placement was within the range of acceptable surgical variance, this outcome is MOST accurately classified as:
- A Medical negligence because harm resulted from the procedure
- B Absolute liability because CBD injury is entirely preventable
- C A recognised complication that does not per se constitute negligence; additional proof of deviation from standard of care is required ✓
- D Criminal negligence under Section 304A BNS as recklessness can be presumed
Explanation
A recognised complication occurring at an accepted rate does not by itself constitute negligence. The legal test in India (following the Bolam test — affirmed in Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab, 2005 Supreme Court) requires proof that the doctor deviated from the standard of care a reasonably competent doctor in the same specialty would have exercised. Complications inherent to a procedure, even causing serious harm, do not establish negligence without evidence of technical error or failure to warn. Criminal negligence (Section 304A) requires gross negligence far exceeding ordinary civil negligence.
Reference: The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (Narayan Reddy), 34th ed.
High-yield for: NEET PGINI-CETNExTFMGEUSMLEPLABMRCP
Written and medically reviewed by the StethoPrep medical team.