The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in, Poonam Sharma and Ors. v. State, while dismissing a plea for compensation for medical negligence against the doctor, quashed the FIR against him and stated that only experts can certify whether there was any negligence on the part of the doctor. In the instant case, the inquiry committee in its report had stated that the doctor was not negligent in the performance of his duty. The court placed reliance on the report and hence quashed the petition and the FIR against him.
Facts:
The petitioners claimed that the husband of petitioner no. 1 died due to the negligence of the doctor (Respondent No. 8). He was detected with gallbladder stones and was treated by a doctor), who cut the common bile duct, which was not required. This resulted in complications, and the family was advised to go from one doctor to another. The deceased was also admitted to the hospital for a while, but after being discharged, he passed away.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The petitioner claimed that the deceased passed away due to the medical negligence of the doctor. A complaint was also filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, who told the police to investigate. All this, however, bore no fruit, and eventually, the petitioners approached this court.
Inquiry Committee:
An inquiry committee was constituted to look into the matter which effectively concluded that no negligence seems to have been done as the doctor has taken the due pre-operative and post-operative case and followed the standard protocols of treatment for saving the life of the patient.
Respondent No. 8’s Contention:
It is the case of Respondent No. 8 that the petition is based on false, frivolous, incorrect, vexatious, and concocted facts and propositions of law, as such, may be dismissed with exemplary costs. Further, it was contended that the Inquiry Committee had concluded that there was no negligence on part of the doctor. Additionally, the Special Medical board had held that there was no negligence on part of the doctor. Further, the doctor also informed the court that the FIR on the matter has been quashed by the HC.
Court’s Observation:
The court went through the judgment wherein the FIR against Respondent No. 8 was quashed by the High Court. Further, the court while relying on a catena of judgments observed that only experts can certify whether there was any negligence on part of the doctor. The Court placed reliance on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 and Martina F. D Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1. In the instant case, the inquiry report and the special medical board had in unequivocal terms observed that there was no negligence on part of Respondent No. 8. Since the experts have found no negligence on part of respondent.8, the court stated that no further enquiry or investigation is required in the matter.
The decision of the Court:
The court thus dismissed the petition and stated that no compensation could be provided to petitioners.
Case Title: Poonam Sharma v. State of J&K & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Case No: OWP No.214/2015
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sharma
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta, Monika Kohli, DS Chauhan, etc.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : twitter.com
