Jodhpur: Granting relief, the Rajasthan High Court recently quashed the FIR against doctors booked for medical negligence during the treatment of a patient, who died after getting admitted for a minor uterine fibroid surgery.While granting relief to the accused doctors, the HC bench comprising Justice Farjand Ali observed that it would be wrong to assume that a doctor or an institute would deliberately risk their reputation by engaging in rash and negligent medical practices."Moreover, this Court is also mindful of the fact that the reputation and functional credibility of private medical institutions are inherently tied to their standards of care and patient outcomes. In the modern healthcare ecosystem, no private hospital or its professional staff can reasonably be presumed to operate with a wilful disregard for human life, especially when such conduct would directly undermine their institutional standing, public trust, and economic viability. A medical practitioner operating within a private setup is guided not merely by the clinical interest of the patient but also by the ethical and reputational constraints of the institution under whose aegis he functions. It must further be appreciated that a single adverse outcome, if even remotely attributable to a negligent act, has the potential to cause irreparable damage to the professional standing of both the doctor and the hospital. In a sector where public confidence serves as the cornerstone of survival, the mere perception of substandard care can derail years of painstakingly built credibility. Private healthcare institutions operate not just as treatment facilities but as trust-based service entities— heavily reliant on goodwill, word-of-mouth, and community validation," observed the HC bench"The inflow of patients, which sustains the operational and financial viability of such institutions, is directly proportional to the public’s perception of their clinical integrity. Consequently, even from a purely pragmatic or commercial standpoint, it defies logic to assume that a doctor or institution would deliberately risk such reputational capital by engaging in rash or negligent medical practices. The risk of professional ruin, economic decline, and eventual institutional collapse acts as a natural deterrent against any willful lapse in the standard of care. Indeed, the very business model of private healthcare is predicated on the maintenance of —professional goodwill and ethical reliability," the Court noted.Further, the bench observed, "The erosion of this trust, through real or perceived negligence, would cause a rapid attrition of patient inflow, leading not only to financial instability but to the eventual dismantling of the entire clinical establishment. Thus, the likelihood of a private medical practitioner, knowingly or recklessly, compromising patient care is not merely implausible—it is antithetical to both professional instinct and institutional self-preservation."Also Read: Cloth left inside woman's stomach during C-Section at UP Hospital, removed after 1.5 yearsTherefore, the Court observed that it is "inconceivable" that a licensed and qualified medical professional, having undergone rigorous academic training and extensive clinical exposure over several years, would "intentionally" pursue a line of treatment with the objective of "endangering human life."These observations were made by the Court while considering the pleas moved by four doctors praying to quash an FIR under BNS Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). It was alleged by the complainant that there was "grave medical negligence" in the treatment of his daughter-in-law, including the omission of pre-operative tests, delayed critical diagnostics and improper post-operative care, which resulted in the death of the complainant's daughter-in-law, who was admitted to the hospital in Jodhpur for undergoing a minor uterine fibroid surgery.It was alleged by the complainant that his daughter-in-law was assured of the simplicity of the procedure, and shortly after admission, without comprehensive diagnostic work-up or pre-operative preparedness, she was rushed into the surgery involving "hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and trans-cervical resection of myoma".The complainant contended that essential pre-surgical protocols, including the INR (International Normalized Ratio) test, were not conducted. After the operation, the patients' condition reportedly deteriorated rapidly, with persistent unconsciousness, yet she was transferred to a general ward without requisite neurological assessment or CT brain imaging.Further, the complainant alleged that despite signs if severe haemorrhage and administration of multiple blood transfusions, the hospital continued to misrepresent her clinical condition as stable. Later, on 07.09.2024, when the patient's condition worsened further, she was referred to Marengo CIMS Hospital, Ahmedabad. At the hospital, the patient was immediately diagnosed...