Medical malpractice litigation has undergone a significant transformation over the past few decades, influenced by technological advancements, increased patient awareness, and evolving legal standards concerning the medical duty of care. Central to this evolution are three crucial negligence doctrines-Res Ipsa Loquitur, Novus Actus Interveniens, and Contributory Negligence of which play a vital role in determining fault, apportioning liability, and clarifying the relationship between medical causation and legal responsibility. Despite their importance, the contemporary application of these doctrines in India remains inconsistent and often unclear, especially in cases involving complex clinical procedures, multi-causal injuries, and ambiguous patient involvement in treatment outcomes. The study examines these doctrines through doctrinal, analytical, and comparative methodologies, drawing from Indian, UK, and US jurisprudence to evaluate adequacy, limitations, and the necessity of reform. The findings suggest that while these doctrines aid courts in assessing medical liability, their fragmented application has led to doctrinal ambiguity and occasional injustice. The paper concludes by proposing a reform framework aimed at achieving a balanced malpractice system that protects patient rights while ensuring a fair, predictable, and medically realistic burden on healthcare providers.