In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, the complainant's father was admitted as a patient in a hospital. While admitted, he felt difficulty in breathing. The complainant's brother contacted the duty nurse. The doctor turned up after about 20 minutes. Procedures were administered but the breathing problem deteriorated. Subsequently, the oxygen cylinder put in use was found to be empty. No other gas cylinder was available in the room. Complainant's brother went to the adjoining room and brought a gas cylinder. Further 5 to 7 minutes were wasted. During this time another doctor came and declared the patient dead. The Judicial Magistrate First Class framed charges under Section 304A, IPC (causing death by negligence) against two doctors. The appellant filed a petition in the High Court for quashing of the First Information Report. High Court dismissed the petition. In appeal the Supreme Court held that to fasten liability in criminal law, the degree of negligence has to be higher than in civil law and the essential ingredient of mens rea cannot be excluded from consideration when the charge is of criminal negligence. The court observed that mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. Further, simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment or a surgery has failed, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied. It was further directed that the investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion, preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner. The Court held that although a case of criminal rashness or negligence was not made out, the hospital may be liable in civil law as the case essentially was of non-availability of oxygen cylinder.