THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13104 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner-A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against her in CC No.659 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Section 499, 503 and 504 IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, the 2nd respondent is a Dentist by profession and in the course of his profession, he treated a lady to her teeth by applying root canal method. Unfortunately, the patient of the 2nd respondent, by name, T. Anitha, lost her teeth. Aggrieved by the medical negligence committed by the 2nd respondent, said Anitha filed a case before the Consumer Forum, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Forum which was allowed directing the 2nd respondent to pay compensation to her. The State Consumer Forum, during the course of enquiry, summoned the opinion of the expert on the subject of the root canal. The petitioner was the doctor, who expressed opinion against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent approached the National Consumer Forum and also lodged a private complaint against the petitioner as A1, the patient T.Anitha as A2 and the Editors of various Newspapers as A3 to A6.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.P.No.13104 of 2013
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mere expression of an opinion on a subject matter would not amount to defamation. The petitioner was a doctor and expert on the subject of medicine dealing with dental subject. The Consumer Forum referred the matter to the petitioner to render opinion whether the treatment given by the 2nd respondent would amount to negligence and the petitioner expressed her opinion basing on medical jurisprudence stating that the treatment given by the 2nd respondent to his patient caused loosing her teeth. The criminal liability ought not to be fastened against the petitioner for expressing opinion on the subject matter referred to her by the Consumer Forum. The 2nd respondent ought to have led evidence if he was aggrieved by the opinion of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent was having remedy of filing an appeal before the National Consumer Forum. Without availing the said remedy, the 2nd respondent filed the present complaint. The 2nd respondent bore grudge on the ground that he suffered order of State Consumer Forum on the opinion of the petitioner and lodged the present complaint and prayed to quash the proceedings in CC No.659 of 2012.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that there was progress in trial in CC before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the chief examination of the 2nd respondent was recorded and the documents were also marked. The case was at the stage of cross examination of PW.1, and hence, it was Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.13104 of 2013 not right to quash the proceedings in the CC at this stage and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Perused the record. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent treated the patient, by name, T. Anitha, who was cited as A2 in CC No.659 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and gave her root canal treatment and she lost all her teeth. She filed a case before the Consumer Forum for the medical negligence against the 2nd respondent and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, she approached the State Consumer Forum and the State Consumer Forum sought for an opinion of the expert and out of six experts, five experts had given opinion in favour of the 2nd respondent, but the petitioner deferred with their opinion. The State Consumer Forum allowed the appeal basing on the opinion of the petitioner No.1 and directed the 2nd respondent to pay compensation to his patient (A2). Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint for defamation under Section 499 IPC against the petitioner and five others as stated supra, which was referred to the police and the police, after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner and others.
7. The opinion is a view point of a person and cannot be considered as conclusive on the subject. It is not binding on the courts. The opinion of the expert is a guiding factor to arrive at a just conclusion of the case. It would only help the Court in determining the requisite standard of the case, whether or not that standard was met. The court requires the opinion of an expert to help itself in Dr.GRR,J 4 Crl.P.No.13104 of 2013 having a wider perspective to give justice. But no criminal liability can be fastened on the experts for expressing their opinion on the subject matters referred to them by the courts. The experts are at liberty to express their opinion on the subject matter taking the facts into consideration. They might also commit errors of judgment on opinion and the same was permissible. The 2nd respondent, if aggrieved by the opinion of the petitioner, can have other recourse like filing an appeal before the National Consumer Forum and as per his compliant, he had taken recourse of the said method. He could cross examine the expert on the opinion given by him and also could adduce evidence of another expert as his defence, to counter the said opinion. The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent itself shows that out of six experts, five experts had given opinion in his favour and the petitioner alone had deferred with them and the State Consumer Forum relied on her opinion and allowed the appeal. The same cannot be considered as defamation, as defamation is a false statement of fact but not an opinion and the courts would generally look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement and the statement must be given by the person knowing it to be false to attract the offence of defamation. Thus, the opinion given by an expert cannot be considered as defamation and the proceedings initiated for defamation by the 2nd respondent basing on such opinion is considered as an abuse of process of law and as such, cannot be permitted to proceed against the petitioner.
Dr.GRR,J 5 Crl.P.No.13104 of 2013
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No.659 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-A1.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 18, 2021 KTL