Supreme Court of Pakistan
Amjad Ali v. Dr. Taqdees Naqaish and others
Published on this website · Updated
Crl.P.L.A. 955 of 2020
Citation: Crl.P.L.A. 955 of 2020
Background
Background
Pakistan’s Supreme Court requires proof of gross medical negligence causing death and explains why consent does not give doctors blanket immunity.
Following his wife’s death after delivery of twin daughters at Shifa Hospital, Amjad Ali alleged criminal negligence by the treating doctors, including use of spinal rather than requested epidural anaesthesia. The trial court acquitted them under Section 249-A CrPC; the Islamabad High Court upheld the acquittal. His leave petition challenged those decisions.
Legal questions
Legal questions
What degree of medical negligence attracts criminal liability for a patient’s death, and did the treatment and consent record justify interfering with the doctors’ acquittal?
Court holding
What the Court decided
Criminal medical negligence requires a duty of care, a breach causing death and gross negligence. An adverse treatment outcome or the availability of another course is insufficient by itself. Section 88 PPC requires benefit, good faith, no intention to cause death and the requisite consent; consent alone does not confer blanket immunity.
Final outcome
Final outcome
Petition dismissed and leave to appeal refused. The doctors’ acquittal under Section 249-A CrPC, upheld by the Islamabad High Court on 16 July 2020, remained undisturbed.
Practical effect
What the decision means in practice
Petition dismissed and leave to appeal refused. The doctors’ acquittal under Section 249-A CrPC, upheld by the Islamabad High Court on 16 July 2020, remained undisturbed.
This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.
Key legal principles
Key legal principles
- Criminal medical negligence requires duty, a breach causing death and gross negligence; injury or death alone does not prove the heightened criminal threshold.
- Reasonable professional competence is assessed in the circumstances and against accepted medical practice, rather than hindsight or the skill of the most experienced specialist.
- Civil negligence does not necessarily establish criminal liability. A criminal case requires a grave and culpable departure from the professional standard.
- Section 88 PPC requires the relevant consent, good faith, treatment for the person’s benefit and absence of an intention to cause death. Consent alone is not decisive.
- The Court found no specific illegal act, gross professional indifference or other criminal culpability established against these doctors and refused to disturb the acquittals.
New judgment alerts
Follow this court or legal topic
Receive new judgments and analysis about Supreme Court of Pakistan, Criminal Law, Civil Law by email.
Primary source
Original judgment and official source
This HTML summary does not replace the court record. Use the linked original judgment PDF or official court source to verify the exact text and directions.
Later treatment
Later treatment
Pinpoint research
Exact paragraph and citation links
Each numbered entry has a permanent link, a ready-to-copy pinpoint citation, and the corresponding page of the certified judgment. The short descriptions are editorial research aids; verify the Court's exact wording in the PDF.
Judgment of Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim7 paragraphs
Duty, breach, causation and Qatl-i-Khata
Connects Section 318 PPC to gross criminal medical negligence and identifies duty, breach and resulting harm.
Ordinary professional competence
Applies the Bolam approach and assesses accepted treatment practice and reasonable competence rather than perfection or hindsight.
The higher criminal threshold
Distinguishes civil negligence from criminal negligence and requires duty, a breach causing death and gross negligence.
Evidence against the respondent doctors
Notes standard postoperative protocols, withdrawal of regulatory censure and the absence of evidence establishing the required criminal culpability.
Consent does not confer blanket immunity
Explains Section 88 PPC and requires benefit, good faith, no intention to cause death and the requisite consent to coexist.
Application of Section 88
Finds no established facts taking the treatment outside the statutory good-faith protection in this case.
Leave refused; acquittals undisturbed
Finds no material evidentiary misreading, perversity or illegality warranting interference and dismisses the petition.
Research tools
Use this judgment in your research
Copy a link to a specific part
Judgment text is provided for legal research and general information. Verify the official court record before relying on it in proceedings.
Related article
Related article
Pakistan’s Supreme Court requires proof of gross medical negligence causing death and explains why consent does not give doctors blanket immunity.
Read the related article →