Repeal section 106/1 BNS

                            

Doctors argue that the legal framework surrounding medical negligence should distinguish between genuine errors in judgment and culpable negligence, which could inadvertently penalize practitioners who are striving to provide the best possible care in challenging circumstances.

Furthermore, the medical community asserts that the punitive stance of this section undermines the collaborative nature of healthcare, where continuous learning and improvement are essential. Instead of fostering an atmosphere where doctors can openly discuss and learn from their mistakes, the threat of imprisonment may drive these conversations underground, ultimately jeopardizing patient safety.

Doctors also emphasize the potential negative impact on patient care, arguing that when healthcare providers work under the constant threat of severe legal consequences, they may become overly cautious, leading to a reluctance to adopt new treatments or procedures. This could stifle innovation and limit patient access to advanced medical care. 

What is medical negligence? 

 1.Harm or  injury to the patient must have a direct link with the breach of duty by doctor.

2.In place of Section 304A  IPC, SECTION 106/1 of BNS Come out with mandatory punishment  with 2 yrs imprisonment. 

Previous Cases Related to Medical Negligence on judicial turf? 

1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another (2006): 

§  In this case the Supreme Court held defined negligence as Negligence is defined as when a defendant fails to use ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom he/she owes a duty, resulting in the plaintiff suffering damage to his person or property 

§  The Court further stated the difference between medical negligence and criminal negligence. 

2. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Mana gement Committee (2005):  

§  The court in this case held that negligence occurs when the expected standards are not followed by the medical practitioner, however if due care has been taken then negligence cannot be constituted. 

3. Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research (2010):  

§  In this case the Supreme Court held that being negligent means doing or not doing something that a prudent man would do or not do.

IMA Strongly demands to Repeal the section 106/1 of BNS.

IMA Urging the law authorities to apply Section 26 of the BNS in medical negligence. ( which states that an act that is not intended to cause death is not considered an offense if it is done in good faith for the benefit of the person harmed. The person harmed must have given their consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to suffer the harm or take the risk of it.

By advocating for the repeal of Section 106(1), doctors hope to promote a more supportive legal environment (SECTION 26 OF BNS) that encourages accountability while also recognizing the inherent difficulties and unpredictable nature of medical practice.