What medical standard did the Court apply?

A doctor must show a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill; the law does not demand the highest possible skill or a guaranteed cure.

Was the doctor liable for misdiagnosis?

No. On these facts the Court held the doctor acted within a reasonable standard and referred the patient when the case became serious.

Did the company face vicarious liability?

No liability was fixed because negligence was not proved against the medical officer; hence the employer also was not liable.

Does a poor outcome prove negligence?

No. A bad outcome alone does not establish negligence. The question is whether reasonable care and skill were used at each stage.

What was ultimately decided?

The Bombay High Court decided in favour of the defendants, holding that negligence was not made out on the evidence.

Philips India Ltd v. Kunju Punnu

Philips India Ltd v. Kunju Punnu (1974) 77 BLR 337 : AIR 1975 Bom 306

Medical Negligence Standard — easy, classroom-style English for quick study.

Bombay High Court 1974/1975 Citation: (1974) 77 BLR 337; AIR 1975 Bom 306 Tort / Medical Negligence Reading: ~7 min Location: India (Explainer)

CASE_TITLE: Philips India Ltd v. Kunju Punnu PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: medical negligence, reasonable skill, professional duty SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: misdiagnosis, referral duty, vicarious liability, workplace clinic AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31 Slug: philips-india-ltd-v-kunju-punnu

Quick Summary

Philips India Ltd v. Kunju Punnu is a Bombay High Court decision on medical negligence. The company doctor first treated an employee, later admitted him, and then referred him to a nursing home where smallpox was detected; the patient died soon after. The Court held that negligence was not proved. Doctors must show reasonable, competent skill—law does not demand the highest skill or a guaranteed cure.

Reasonable Skill Professional Duty Misdiagnosis vs Negligence Workplace Clinic No Vicarious Liability

Issues

Did the medical officer treat the employee with gross negligence and carelessness?
If negligence is not proved, can the employer be vicariously liable?

Rules

A medical professional must exercise a fair, reasonable, and competent degree of skill and care. The law does not require the highest possible skill, and a doctor does not guarantee a cure.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for Philips India Ltd v. Kunju Punnu case

Employment & Clinic

Gopal worked at Philips India Ltd. Company’s medical officer (D2) treated employees free of charge.

20 Dec 1961: Illness

Gopal fell ill at work. D2 advised rest; initial diagnosis later alleged to be wrong (treated as venereal disease).

22–25 Dec: Treatment

He returned/was advised leave again; medication continued for the alleged condition; admitted to the dispensary on 25 Dec.

Referral & Diagnosis

When serious, D2 shifted him to a nursing home; there smallpox was suspected and he was sent to the infectious disease hospital.

31 Dec 1961: Death

He died. Mother sued for damages alleging gross negligence and wrong treatment (claim ~Rs 26,000).

Arguments

Plaintiff (Mother)

Doctor misdiagnosed smallpox as venereal disease and gave harmful treatment.
Delay and wrong medicines worsened the condition; death followed.
Company is vicariously liable for its medical officer’s negligence.

Defendants (Company & Doctor)

Doctor attended promptly, monitored, and referred on deterioration.
Standard is reasonable competence, not perfection; no promise of cure.
Causation not proved between earlier treatment and death.

Judgment

The Bombay High Court held for the defendants. The medical officer did not fail in his duty: he treated, admitted when necessary, and referred when the case became serious. The conduct met the test of reasonable skill and care.

Result: Negligence not proved; no liability fixed on the doctor or employer.

Ratio Decidendi

Medical negligence requires proof that the doctor fell below the reasonable competence expected of a professional in similar circumstances. An error in judgment or a poor outcome alone is not negligence. Referral on deterioration supports due care.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the reasonable skill standard in medical negligence.
Shows that referral at the right time counts toward due care.
Distinguishes misdiagnosis from legally actionable negligence.

Key Takeaways

Doctors owe reasonable, competent care—not perfection.
Bad outcomes do not automatically mean negligence.
Timely referral supports a finding of due care.

Employer’s vicarious liability follows only if negligence is proved.
Proof needs breach and causation—both must be shown.
Useful precedent for clinic and occupational health settings.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ CARE = Check → Admit → Refer (if needed)”

Check with reasonable skill at each visit.
Admit when monitoring is needed.
Refer promptly as condition worsens.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether the company doctor acted with gross negligence in diagnosis and treatment leading to the employee’s death.

Rule

Doctor must exercise fair, reasonable, competent skill; no duty to guarantee cure or the highest degree of expertise.

Application

Doctor attended repeatedly, admitted when needed, and referred on deterioration—conduct consistent with reasonable care.

Conclusion

Negligence not established; employer not vicariously liable.

Glossary

Medical Negligence: Failure to exercise the reasonable skill and care expected of a medical professional in similar circumstances.
Standard of Care: The legal measure of how a reasonably competent doctor would act, not an ideal or perfect standard.
Vicarious Liability: When an employer is held liable for an employee’s torts committed in the course of employment.