The division judge bench of the Bombay High Court held that mere negligence would not constitute any offence unless such negligent act on the part of the accused is found to be a proximate cause for death. Furthermore, the court stated that criminal prosecutions against medical practitioners are on the increase. Keeping in mind authoritative judicial pronouncements in rate, they are required to be protected from frivolous and unjust prosecution, particularly when that has been used for pressurising them to extract uncalled or unfair compensation.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased was treated by the applicant as she had weakness in her right hand, so the applicant prescribed her some medicines. Certain medicines were injected through Intravenous (IV). The blood samples were collected. Based on the report of Pathology Laboratory, further medicines were prescribed, suspecting her to be a patient of Typhoid. Since there was no improvement in health conditions, Dr. M. M. Deshmukh was consulted. Thereafter, the patient was admitted to the hospital, and the blockage of blood supply to the brain was noticed, and surgery was conducted by Dr. Swapnil Patil. Furthermore, her health deteriorated, and a brain haemorrhage was noticed. The second surgery was conducted to control haemorrhage, but there was no improvement in the health of Gayatri, and ultimately, she lost her life. After that, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the Applicant. Aggrieved by this, the present application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Applicant submitted that the applicant is a registered medical practitioner and entitled to prescribe modern scientific medicines to the extent of training that is received by him in that stream. It was furthermore submitted that the cause of death is not known, but from the treatment papers, it can be gathered that the cause of death is attributable to brain haemorrhage and unsuccessful surgery, which has nothing to do with medicines prescribed and treatment advanced by the applicant. Also, the applicant has been falsely implicated in a case of medical negligence in the absence of evidence to establish rash and negligent acts on the part of the applicant and the consequential death of Gayatri.
Contentions of the State:
The State submitted that the Applicant was not fit to prescribe modern medicines and practice in Allopathy. It was furthermore submitted that the report of the Expert Committee stipulates that the applicant prescribed medicines of irrational combination that was responsible for the deteriorating health of Gayatri.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that to attract Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the following ingredients must be followed - Firstly, there must be a rash and negligent act on the part of the accused, and secondly, such rash and negligent act must be the cause of death.
The court furthermore observed that the contents of the report expert committee were irrational. However, the Committee report nowhere specifies the consequence of such an irrational combination of medicines. Based on the contents of the report, it is not possible to arrive at the conclusion that brain haemorrhage, which appears to be the ultimate reason for the death of Gayatri, was directly resulted or oriented from an irrational combination of medicines administered to her.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Dr. Suresh Gupta Vs. Government of N.C.T of Delhi and Another, Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee and Others, Jacob Mathew Vs. State of State of Punjab and another, Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, and Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap.
The court noted that in the absence of proximity between the cause of death and negligent act, which is sine qua non for prosecution against a medical practitioner, criminal prosecution under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.
The court furthermore noted that the criminal prosecutions against medical practitioners are increasing, keeping in mind authoritative judicial pronouncements in rate, they require to be protected from frivolous and unjust prosecution, particularly when that has been used for pressurising them for extracting uncalled or unfair compensation.
Based on these considerations, the court quashed the FIR by exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal application.
Case Title: Dr. Prashant Sopan Ahire V. The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar
Case No.: Criminal Application No. 1737 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. V. B. Patil
Advocate for the State: Mr. A. M. Phule
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :