Safety, rights
& responsibility.

The Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010 prohibits violence, intimidation, obstruction of duty and property damage within its definitions.

• Sections 3–4: committing, attempting, abetting or inciting violence can attract up to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine up to ₹50,000.
• Section 5: offences are cognizable and non-bailable. Police can investigate a cognizable offence without a magistrate’s prior order; non-bailable means bail requires the applicable judicial decision, not that bail is impossible.
• Section 6: court-assessed property compensation is twice the damage or loss, in addition to punishment.

Check who is covered: section 2 includes medical and nursing students and specified workers. Several worker categories expressly exclude public servants. Public-servant offences under the BNS may apply to government staff; do not assume every doctor has that status.

Section 7 provides for a state-notified authority to advise negligence victims. Its current local constitution and contact have not been verified here.

Read Maharashtra Act · sections 2–7 ↗

Police may consider these Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provisions, according to the facts:

• 115, 117, 118: hurt, grievous hurt and hurt involving dangerous weapons or means.
• 131: assault or criminal force; 351: criminal intimidation.
• 324: mischief/property damage; 329: criminal trespass.
• 189–191: unlawful assembly, common-object liability and rioting.
• 121 and 132: injury or assault connected with deterring a public servant from duty, where that legal status and connection are established.

The injury, intention, weapon, damage and role of each accused affect the offence and punishment. A disagreement about treatment does not authorise violence.

Read BNS · relevant offence definitions ↗

The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, as amended in 2020, contains specific protection for defined healthcare personnel and property during an epidemic. It is not automatically the governing special law for every hospital assault.

• Sections 2B and 3(2): covered violence or property damage attracts 3 months–5 years’ imprisonment and a ₹50,000–₹2 lakh fine.
• Section 3(3): covered grievous hurt attracts 6 months–7 years and a ₹1 lakh–₹5 lakh fine.
• Section 3A: these offences are cognizable and non-bailable, with specified investigation and trial timelines.
• Section 3E: compensation for injury and twice the fair market value of damaged property may be ordered.

Police or counsel should establish the statutory epidemic connection and applicable notifications.

Read amended Epidemic Diseases Act · sections 1A–3E ↗

Information about a cognizable offence can be given at a police station irrespective of where it happened (commonly called Zero FIR). Explain the incident, injuries, threats and damage, with date, time, location and witnesses.

BNSS section 173 permits oral information or electronic communication. Electronic information must be signed within 3 days to be taken on record. Use the police’s official procedure; sending a message to this project is not an e-FIR.

Home Ministry explanation · 11 August 2026 ↗

Ask for the free recorded-information copy under section 173(2). If registration is refused, section 173(4) provides a written, postal approach to the Superintendent of Police and, if that fails, an application to the Magistrate. A lawyer can assist with the required papers.

Read BNSS · sections 173 and 175 ↗

Keep a factual timeline, injury records, witness contacts, original CCTV exports, threatening messages, photographs and estimates of damaged equipment. Ask the hospital to preserve recordings before automatic deletion.

Preserve originals and metadata. Do not edit footage or post patient records publicly. Record who collected each item and when; provide copies securely to the police or lawyer. Electronic evidence may require certification under section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

A complaint about clinical care and an assault allegation should each be assessed on their evidence. Neither automatically proves or cancels the other.

Read Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam · electronic evidence ↗

A negligence claim normally needs a duty of care, a breach of the reasonably expected standard, and resulting harm caused by that breach. A poor outcome or recognised complication alone does not establish negligence.

The assessment concerns a reasonably competent professional in the circumstances, including the available facilities and accepted medical practice. It does not require every doctor to achieve the best possible outcome. Conversely, an unexplained failure to assess, monitor, treat or refer appropriately can require scrutiny.

Civil compensation, professional discipline and criminal prosecution have different tests and purposes. Criminal negligence requires a substantially higher degree of negligence than an ordinary civil claim.

Supreme Court · medical negligence principles, 23 April 2024 ↗

BNS section 106(1) provides up to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine for a qualifying registered medical practitioner causing death by a rash or negligent act while performing a medical procedure. The statutory registration definition matters. This is not blanket immunity from prosecution.

Read BNS · section 106(1) ↗

The Supreme Court’s Jacob Mathew principles require a high degree of negligence for criminal liability. They call for independent, competent medical opinion before proceeding against a doctor for alleged criminal negligence, and caution against routine arrest merely because a complaint is made.

A private criminal complaint requires credible medical support for the allegation. These safeguards do not impose a compulsory expert-report prerequisite on every consumer complaint; the Supreme Court has distinguished the two routes.

Supreme Court · criminal safeguards and consumer proceedings ↗

Paid medical services can fall within consumer protection. Under the V.P. Shantha line of decisions, a hospital that treats some patients free and charges others can also fall within it. Treatment entirely free for everyone is treated differently; employer- or insurance-funded care needs a careful assessment.

Supreme Court · paid, free and employment-linked medical services ↗

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides district, state and national consumer commissions. Section 69 generally allows 2 years from the cause of action, with a reasoned extension for sufficient cause. The correct forum and limitation calculation depend on the claim.

A civil suit may be another route, including where consumer jurisdiction is unavailable. Obtain advice promptly about the proper forum, current case law, records, expert evidence and compensation sought. A pending challenge to a legal rule does not itself suspend it.

Read Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · section 69 ↗

A patient with capacity should receive adequate information about the proposed treatment, its purpose, substantial risks, alternatives and consequences of refusing, and decide voluntarily. A signature alone does not establish that this discussion happened.

Consent to a diagnostic procedure does not automatically authorise a different therapeutic operation. Additional treatment without consent has a narrow necessity exception where delay would endanger life or health and consent cannot be obtained. Convenience is not enough.

Document the explanation, patient’s decision and any emergency justification. Consent is not a waiver of negligent treatment.

Supreme Court · Samira Kohli v Dr Prabha Manchanda, 2008 ↗

Under the 2002 medical ethics regulations:

• 1.3.1: retain indoor-patient records for 3 years from commencement of treatment. Other rules or ongoing proceedings may require longer retention.
• 1.3.2: acknowledge requests from the patient, authorised attendant or legal authorities and issue records within 72 hours.
• 2.2 and 7.14: protect professional confidences, subject to specified legal and public-health exceptions.
• 2.4: a physician must treat in an emergency; an accepted patient should not be abandoned without adequate notice.

Keep accurate, dated records and lawful corrections. Do not retrospectively rewrite the clinical account to defend a complaint.

NMC · Code of Medical Ethics Regulations, 2002 ↗

Complaints about a registered doctor’s professional conduct can be made to the appropriate State Medical Council. Disciplinary proceedings concern registration and professional standards; they do not replace police action or compensation proceedings.

NMC · disciplinary provisions, chapter 8 ↗

The NMC notification dated 23 August 2023 held the 2023 Registered Medical Practitioner Professional Conduct Regulations in abeyance and restored the 2002 framework. Do not rely on a summary of the suspended 2023 rules as if all those provisions are active.

Check the NMC’s latest notifications and the relevant State Medical Council’s complaint process when filing.

NMC · 23 August 2023 notification ↗

NMC · current regulations and amendments ↗

Sexual harassment of women at work has a separate complaint mechanism under the 2013 workplace harassment law. Hospitals and health institutions are covered workplaces. The Internal Committee or district Local Committee handles complaints, according to the statutory circumstances.

The usual complaint period is 3 months from the incident or last incident in a series, with a possible statutory extension. Criminal conduct can also be reported to police. Ask for the institution’s committee details and a confidential reporting route.

Government guide · workplace sexual harassment law ↗