Kerala HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Case Against Lab Technician For 'Endangering Life' By Deviating From Test Method Prescribed By Doctor
The Kerala High Court has held that a lab technician can be held liable for negligence if they deviate from the test prescribed by the doctor on the ground that the test so prescribed was unavailable in their lab.
Consequently, the Court refused to quash the final report alleging offence punishable under Section 336 (rash or negligent acts endangering human life) IPC against a lab worker, who conducted the Elisa Test by 'Particle Gel Immuno Assay' method, instead of the 'Hit Antibody Test' method on complainant's mother.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the lab technician was duty-bound to conduct the test prescribed by the doctor or to send back the patient if the test was unavailable in their lab.
“Thus, on no stretch of imagination one could say that the overt act done by the petitioner is not an act of negligence because the Lab Technician is duty-bound to conduct the test commanded by the doctor or to send back the patient, if the said test/procedure was not available at the lab. Therefore, negligence on the part of the petitioner in this matter is foreseeable.”
The Court further stated that if the doctor had not identified the negligence and conducted another test, it could have been fatal to the patient, thus attracting an offence punishable under Section 336 of the IPC.
“If at all, the doctor could not have understood the negligent act done by the petitioner and had relied on the report with 'negative' result, treatment would not have been possible and the same might have led to danger to the life of the patient or to her personal safety. When construing the overt act in the above compass, it emerges that the act of the petitioner herein would satisfy the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 336 of IPC as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, negating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”
The allegation is that the accused conducted the Hit Antibody Test by Particle Gel Immuno Assay method, instead of Elisa method rashly and negligently, contrary to the doctor's prescription to endanger the life of the complainant's mother as per Section 336 of the IPC.
The accused has approached the Court to quash the final report alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 336 of the IPC.
The Petitioner contended that merely conducting Elisa Test by using Particle Gel Immuno Assay method instead of using the Hit Antibody Test by itself would not attract an offence under Section 336 of the IPC. It was further stated that the doctor had carried out the Hit Antibody Test by collecting a new sample which yielded a positive result and treatment was administered to the patient, with no overt act present that would attract an offence under Section 336.
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner conducted the Particle Gel Immuno Assay Method Test without any authorisation. It was stated that the result yielded a negative result and if no treatment had been provided, it would have been fatal.
The Court stated that rash or negligent act so as to endanger the human life or personal safety of another would attract an offence under Section 336 of the IPC. The Court stated that criminal negligence would be attracted when there is gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable or proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public or to an individual.
The Court observed that the petitioner who was aware that the Hit Antibody Test was unavailable in the lab did another test without doctor's prescription. It further noted that upon noticing that Hit Antibody Test had not been performed, the doctor ordered it to be done.
The Court highlighted that the Elisa Test, performed by the petitioner using the Particle Gel Immuno Assay method, returned a negative result, whereas the Hit Antibody Test, conducted under the doctor's instruction, yielded a positive result. The Court observed that this positive result enabled the doctor to initiate the appropriate treatment to help the complainant's mother and avoided danger.
“In fact, whether the danger to human life was avoided or not has no significance when an act was done either rashly or negligently so as to endanger the human life or personal safety of others,” added the Court.
As such, the Court dismissed the petition and declined to quash the final report against the petitioner.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Sreekala Krishnadas, C.Vivek, Ashly James, Bonifus P.A, Devika Warrier
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 9062 OF 2023
Case Title: Princy Mol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 755