What began as a routine first pregnancy ended in the death of a newborn — and eventually, in criminal proceedings against the treating doctor. The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in this case draws a hard line on question courts are increasingly unwilling to overlook: can a doctor practise outside their declared area of expertise and escape criminal scrutiny when things go wrong?

The expectant mother had been under medical supervision throughout her pregnancy. When labour pains began, she was admitted to a private hospital and reassured that a normal delivery was expected. However, during active labour, the doctor left town, leaving the patient in the hands of hospital staff. The baby later died due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around the neck — a complication that, according to the family, could have been detected and managed with proper monitoring and specialist care.

An FIR was lodged alleging criminal negligence. Initial police investigation concluded that no cognisable offence was made out and a closure report was filed. The matter, however, did not end there.

Further investigation by a specialised agency revealed facts that shifted the legal lens entirely. The treating doctor was not qualified in obstetrics and gynaecology, yet was holding herself out as competent to manage pregnancy and delivery. Medical Council proceedings and expert committee reports flagged poor clinical judgment, lack of foetal monitoring facilities, absence of timely ultrasound support, and care that fell below accepted obstetric standards.

Based on this material, a charge sheet was filed alleging offences under Sections 304-A (causing death by negligence) and 420 (cheating). The doctor challenged the proceedings, arguing that criminal prosecution violated the Supreme Court’s safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew, and that further investigation after a negative report was illegal.

The High Court rejected both arguments.

It held that criminal negligence can arise where a doctor does not possess the skill they profess to have, or practises beyond their authorised specialisation. The Court noted that expert opinions from the Medical Council and a government medical college were on record — satisfying the Jacob Mathew requirement. It also clarified that the criminal procedure permits further investigation even after a closure report, where fresh material emerges.

Importantly, the Court observed that an FIR need not spell out every technical detail of negligence. If later investigation uncovers evidence of misrepresentation of expertise and unsafe medical practice, criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold.

The petition was dismissed, allowing the criminal trial to proceed.

IML Insight

This case is a clear warning to hospitals and practitioners alike. Specialisation is not cosmetic — it is legal currency. Practising beyond one’s registered competence, especially in high-risk fields like obstetrics, can convert a treatment failure into a criminal charge. As scrutiny tightens, credential transparency, scope-of-practice controls, and institutional oversight are no longer optional safeguards — they are legal necessities.

Source : Order pronounced by Rajasthan High Court on 20th October, 2022.