Medical Negligence And The Architecture Of Accountability In India: A Critical Dissection Of Tort, Consumer Law, And Constitutional Gaps Through Argument, Rebuttal, And Reform
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 15
- 1 min read
Shaurya Kashyap, BBA. LL.B.(Hons.), Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
This article examines the conceptual and doctrinal integrity of medical negligence law in India by analysing its concurrent existence within tort, consumer protection, and constitutional frameworks. Going beyond mere descriptive analysis, it engages in a systematic dissection of the current legal regime through argumentation, counterargument, and jurisprudential critique. At the heart of this inquiry is the judiciary’s ongoing deference to the Bolam test, whose entrenchment has made legal determinations of professional fault predominantly subordinate to medical custom. Equally important is the statutory exclusion of free medical services from the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, which, while defensible from a doctrinal standpoint, creates a remedial imbalance that is inconsistent with the egalitarian principles of the Indian Constitution. The paper further scrutinizes the discretionary nature of compensation awards, linking the lack of principled thresholds to a broader inadequacy in the legal framework to align individual harm with systemic accountability. By drawing on doctrinal sources, case law, and comparative references, it places these doctrinal shortcomings within a larger discourse regarding the fragmentation of legal redress and the necessity for structural coherence. In response, the article suggests a series of reformative measures: a reconfiguration of expert deference through standards subject to judicial review; the incorporation of publicly funded healthcare into the consumer framework; a nationally standardized compensation grid; the establishment of hybrid review boards; and focused capacity-building in the adjudication of medical injury. These proposals are not merely normative but are presented as the logical conclusion of the doctrinal tensions discussed throughout.
