The Kerala High Court stated that it doesn’t matter if human life was actually at risk; what matters is if the action was done carelessly or recklessly, putting lives in danger.
The Kerala High Court rejected a petition from a Lab Technician who wanted to dismiss a case against him under section 336 of the IPC. The court explained that it does not matter if human life was actually endangered; what matters is whether the act was done carelessly or negligently, putting others at risk. The accused went to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the final report in a criminal case at the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam. Justice A. Badharudeen, in a single-judge bench, stated that “criminal negligence” means a serious failure to take proper care to prevent harm to the public or individuals, which the accused should have done given the circumstances.
Advocate Sreekala Krishnadas represented the accused, while Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George represented the prosecution. The prosecution claimed that the accused committed an offense under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The specific allegation was that while working at Metropolis Lab, the accused told the mother of the complainant that the requested ‘Elisa Hit Antibody Test’ was unavailable. Instead, the accused performed a different test, the ‘Particle Gel Immuno Assay Method,’ in a careless manner that could endanger life, thus committing an offense under Section 336 of the IPC.
The Bench referred to section 336 of the IPC, explaining that if someone acts recklessly or carelessly in a way that threatens another person’s life or safety, they fall under this law. The Bench noted that Section 336 covers actions that are done rashly or negligently, regardless of whether anyone is harmed or affected in the process. In this case, the Bench pointed out that the doctor requested an ‘Elisa-Hit Antibody Test’. When the complainant’s mother arrived at the lab, the accused, knowing that the ‘Hit Antibody Test’ was unavailable, suggested an alternative method called ‘Particle Gel Immuno Assay Method’, which returned a ‘negative’ result.
According to the doctor, upon realizing that the Metropolis Lab used the ‘Particle Gel Immuno Assay Method’ instead of the requested test, which was ineffective, he took another blood sample and sent it to the Medical College, where it came back ‘positive’. This result showed that relying on the Metropolis Lab’s negative report would have missed the positive indication of a Covid vaccine reaction. Fortunately, the doctor acted quickly and conducted another test, leading to the necessary treatment that saved the patient. The Bench emphasized that it does not matter whether danger to life was ultimately avoided; what matters is that the act was done recklessly or carelessly, putting others’ safety at risk.
The Bench stated that it is impossible to argue that the petitioner’s actions were not negligent. The Lab Technician is required to perform the tests ordered by the doctor or to refer the patient back if the test is unavailable. Thus, the petitioner’s negligence in this situation is clear. Additionally, if the doctor was unable to recognize the petitioner’s negligence and relied on a ‘negative’ report, it could have prevented necessary treatment, putting the patient’s life or safety at risk. The Bench noted that the petitioner’s actions meet the criteria for an offense under Section 336 of the IPC, rejecting the petitioner’s arguments and dismissing the Petition.
Cause Title: Princy Mol v. State Of Kerala [2024:KER:87632]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sreekala Krishnadas, C.vivek, Ashly James, Bonifus P.A., Devika Warrie Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George
