The year 2025 witnessed a subtle yet significant evolution in the judicial approach to medical negligence law, reflecting an ongoing effort by consumer forums and higher courts to balance patient protection with the inherent uncertainties of medical practice. The trends observed during this period underscore a heightened emphasis on procedural compliance, the necessity of expert evidence, and the establishment of a clear causal link between a doctor’s omission or commission and the resulting injury.
Probability to be seen
A major trend throughout 2025 was the courts consistent adherence to the rule that medical negligence must be established on the preponderance of probability. Courts repeatedly affirmed that a mere unfortunate outcome or death does not automatically equate to negligence. Instead, the complainant carries the burden of demonstrating a clear departure from the accepted “standard protocol” or the care expected of a reasonably competent medical professional. Decisions frequently hinged on whether the medical action or inaction represented an “act of omission or commission” that no competent doctor would have been guilty of. In instances where the treating physician adhered to standard procedures, even if the result was poor, courts were reluctant to in
value expert opinion and medical records
The reliance on independent professional opinions gained further traction. The opinions of medical boards, often constituted as part of the investigative process, were frequently upheld by judicial bodies, signifying a reluctance to brush aside expert exoneration without compelling counter-evidence. Where medical regulatory bodies had reviewed and cleared the doctors, consumer forums tended to give significant weight to these findings, particularly in complex cases like cancer treatment where inherent risks are high.
Mere averments are not enough
Conversely, the absence of crucial evidence proved fatal to many claims. Courts maintained that “mere averments” of negligence are insufficient. In several rulings, the failure to produce corroborating medical records or secure a credible expert opinion resulted in the dismissal of the claim. Furthermore, general allegations, such as “unhygienic conditions,” were routinely rejected when unsupported by specific,
clear nexus with treatment and not casual nexus
While rigorous in demanding proof of negligence, the consumer courts demonstrated clear mandate in cases involving clear procedural lapses or systemic failures, which fall under the ambit of “deficiency in service.” Significant rulings highlighted that a hospital’s failure to provide essential facilities, such as specialized care units (e.g., neonatal facilities for a newborn), constitutes a clear breach of duty, irrespective of the doctor’s individual skill. Similarly, institutional negligence was established when critical patient information, such as diagnostic reports (e.g., X-rays), was not transmitted between referring and specialized hospitals, leading to a delay or error in subsequent treatment. This trend solidified the principle that negligence extends beyond the operating table to encompass crucial administrative and logistical responsibilities within a healthcare. The courts strongly emphasized the requirement of a clear nexus between the alleged negligence and the patient’s injury or death. In cases where complications or death occurred subsequent to a medical procedure (like a hysterectomy), but after the patient had been discharged, the courts required proof that the complications were directly traceable to the hospital’s actions during the treatment period. Absent a demonstrable link—where the post-discharge complications could not be directly or proximately connected to the surgical event—negligence was not established.
AI is now throwing a new challenge. Patients who do not have medical insurance and are spending from their pockets, are now trying to get reimbursement by using AI in the most deplorable way. They are taking their medical records, prescriptions, investigation reports and discharge summaries to AI and asking the LLMs to spell out how better could their treatment be? Any aberration anywhere then becomes a point of either litigation or blackmail. Doctors will soon learn to use the LLMs themselves while creating patient documents, thus taking away the patient specific peculiarities from these documents. Innovation would suffer and mundane would become the rule.