The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that a private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the complaint case was lodged by the younger son of the deceased in which it was alleged that the deceased died due to the gross medical negligence committed by the accused persons while she was admitted to the hospital. It was further alleged that the deceased complained about her weakness and trouble in passing urine, therefore she was taken to the Hospital and after consultations with the petitioner, he paid some amount on the counter and was further admitted into the Hospital. Thereafter, she was admitted to the CCU and asked to purchase some medicine as it was told that the deceased was suffering from high blood sugar, therefore insulin was required to be administered, the Hospital did not share anything with the patient or attend, they were only providing the slip of medicine and the complainant was required to purchase the same from the shop which also runs by the Accused no. 1 Hospital. Also, they never shared the reason for the death and even after the death of the deceased, they collected some amount. The cognizance was taken for the offense under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Aggrieved by this, the present petition for quashing is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is a qualified and highly experienced doctor. It was furthermore contended that the deceased was admitted to the hospital with some problem and her sugar level was found to be high and no case under Section 304 A of the IPC is made out. Also, in spite of their best efforts, they were not able to save the life of the mother of the deceased, and the guidelines mentioned by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment titled Jacob Mathew Versus State of Punjab were not complied with.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The Opposite Party contended that the blood sugar level was wrongly administered which resulted in the death of the deceased. It was furthermore contended that the court can’t entertain the arguments of the Petitioner at this stage as such arguments are to be considered by the trial court only.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the treatment continued for a few days, but despite the doctors' best efforts, she was unable to survive. As a result, a complaint was filed, claiming that the deceased had received a high dose of insulin.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, and Martin F. D’ Souza v. Md. Ishfaq.
The court furthermore observed that that a private complaint might not be entertained unless the complainant can show that the accused doctor was reckless or negligent, and can provide prima facie proof in the form of a reliable opinion from another medical professional.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that continuing with the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Case Title: Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak @ Dr. S.K. Pathak V. The State of Jharkhand.
Case no.: Cr.M.P. No. 2866 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Advocate for the State: Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
Advocate for the Opposite Party: Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
