Abstract

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning "the thing speaks for itself," plays a significant role in the law of torts, particularly in cases of medical negligence. This principle allows the burden of proof to shift from the complainant to the defendant, requiring the latter to demonstrate that no negligence occurred. Originating from Roman legal traditions and famously applied in the English case Byrne v Boadle (1863), the doctrine has evolved significantly, especially within the medicolegal context in India. Here, res ipsa loquitur is frequently invoked under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to hold medical professionals accountable when injuries occur under circumstances typically linked to negligence, despite proper care. To apply this doctrine, the complainant must establish that the medical professional owed a duty of care, the incident could not have happened without negligence, the accident was under the exclusive control of the defendant, and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the patient. The burden then shifts to the healthcare provider to prove otherwise, employing strategies such as challenging the applicability of the doctrine, disputing exclusive control, proving contributory negligence by the patient, or providing evidence of due care through guidelines and expert opinions. This paper explores the complexities of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence, including notable defenses that healthcare providers can employ and the implications of landmark judgments such as Dr. Janak Kantimathi Nathan vs. Murlidhar Eknath Masane, V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, and the non-applicability of the principle in criminal law as affirmed in the Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab case. Through these analyses, the doctrine's impact on medical litigation and the evolving standards of care are highlighted, offering insights into its practical application and challenges within modern medicolegal practice.

Keywords