STANDARD OF CARE IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE: A STUDY OF INDIAN JUDICIARY WITH REFERENCE TO NAGALAND

The concept of the standard of care constitutes the cornerstone of medical negligence jurisprudence in India, serving as the primary criterion for determining professional liability. Indian courts have largely relied on the Bolam principle and the notion of the “reasonable medical practitioner” to assess whether a medical professional has acted with due skill and diligence. While this framework has contributed to doctrinal clarity and consistency, its uniform application across diverse healthcare settings raises important concerns. This paper examines the judicial evolution of the standard of care in India and evaluates its applicability in the context of Nagaland, a region characterized by infrastructural constraints, limited medical resources, and geographical challenges. Through a doctrinal and analytical approach, the study highlights the gap between judicially evolved standards and the realities of healthcare delivery in resource-constrained settings. It argues that a strictly uniform standard may lead to inequitable outcomes by failing to account for systemic limitations faced by medical practitioners in such regions. The paper advocates for a context-sensitive interpretation of the standard of care that incorporates relevant factors such as availability of infrastructure, level of expertise, and situational urgency, while maintaining the core principles of accountability and patient protection. It concludes that such an approach would promote substantive fairness and enhance the effectiveness of medical negligence law in addressing regional disparities within India.