Medical law: Jacob Mathew case: practice question

A Forensic Medicine question in the style of the NEET PG paper. Answer it first, then read why the right option is right and why each of the others is wrong.

Try it

Forensic Medicine · Medical law: Jacob Mathew case

Sample item

A relative files a criminal complaint alleging that a surgeon caused a patient's death during an operation. According to the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), what is required before such a prosecution proceeds?

Original practice item, not a recalled exam question. Nothing here is recorded.

The answer and the reasoning

D. Credible opinion from another competent doctor that there was gross negligence or recklessness

In Jacob Mathew the Supreme Court held that criminal liability of a doctor requires gross negligence or recklessness, not mere error of judgement or an accident. It directed that a private complaint should not be entertained unless supported by credible opinion of another competent doctor, preferably from government service, and that police should not arrest a doctor routinely. The test remains the Bolam standard of an ordinary skilled practitioner.

Option by option

  • A. A finding that the surgeon failed to attain the highest possible skill

    The law expects ordinary skill of the profession, not the highest possible skill.

  • B. Only the statement of the grieving relatives

    Statements of relatives alone cannot establish medical negligence to the criminal standard.

  • C. Proof that the operation was unsuccessful

    An unsuccessful result does not by itself prove negligence.

  • D. Credible opinion from another competent doctor that there was gross negligence or recklessness (correct)

    Correct. Independent expert opinion indicating gross negligence is required.

Source note: Original NextPrep sample item — pending expert review. This item is original practice material awaiting independent expert review, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.

More Forensic Medicine questions

Questions about this Forensic Medicine question

What is the answer to this Forensic Medicine question?

The best answer is D, Credible opinion from another competent doctor that there was gross negligence or recklessness. In Jacob Mathew the Supreme Court held that criminal liability of a doctor requires gross negligence or recklessness, not mere error of judgement or an accident.

Why is "A finding that the surgeon failed to attain the highest possible skill" not the answer?

The law expects ordinary skill of the profession, not the highest possible skill.

Why is "Only the statement of the grieving relatives" not the answer?

Statements of relatives alone cannot establish medical negligence to the criminal standard.

Why is "Proof that the operation was unsuccessful" not the answer?

An unsuccessful result does not by itself prove negligence.

What concept does this question test?

It tests Medical law: Jacob Mathew case in Forensic Medicine. It directed that a private complaint should not be entertained unless supported by credible opinion of another competent doctor, preferably from government service, and that police should not arrest a doctor routinely. The test remains the Bolam standard of an ordinary skilled practitioner.

How hard is this question?

We tag it as a multi-step question: it asks you to combine more than one idea. The tag is our own editorial judgement, not an official difficulty rating, so read the reason for every option, not only the answer.

How should I study Medical law: Jacob Mathew case?

Learn postmortem changes with their timelines, and toxicology as poison, sign, test and antidote. Then use the flashcards and the other Forensic Medicine questions on this site to test what stuck.

Is this a real NEET PG question?

No. It is an original practice item (editorial status: sample, version 1). NextPrep does not publish recalled or leaked questions, and independent faculty review of this item has not been completed yet, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.