Delhi High Court
Indraprastha Medical Corp. Ltd. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 2 August, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No. 827/2010
DATE OF ORDER : 2ND AUGUST, 2010
% 02.08.2010
INDRAPRASTHA MEDICAL CORP. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Gandhi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Malik & Mr. N.P. Joshi,
AdO.P. Saxena, APP
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
ORAL
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order
dated 19th December, 2007, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a
complaint case under section 336/337/471 read with section 34 IPC qua the
petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner Indraprastha Medical Corporation
Limited was a company incorporated under Companies Act and the company
being only a juristic person was incapable of committing a crime of medical
negligence, because it involved personal negligent act.
Crl. M.C. No. 827 of 2010 Page 1 of 6
2. A complaint was filed before the learned M.M. against the petitioner
company and the Doctors involved in the treatment of deceased wherein it
was alleged that deceased died due to gross medical negligence of the
Doctors. It is also submitted that Doctors involved in treatment advised
wrong/superfluous treatments in order to extract extra money.
3. The petitioner's counsel stated that petitioner is not assailing the order
as against Doctors but is assailing it so far as company was concerned on the
ground that the company running the hospital, could not have acted in the
manner in which it is assailed by the complainant.
4. In Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2005 SCC
(Cri.) 961, SC made following observations regarding criminal liability of the
Corporation:
"6. There is no dispute that a company is liable to be
prosecuted and punished for criminal offences.
Although there are earlier authorities to the effect
that corporations cannot commit a crime, the
generally accepted modern rule is that except for such
crimes as a corporation is held incapable of
committing by reason of the fact that they involve
personal malicious intent, a corporation may be
subject to indictment or other criminal process,
although the criminal act is committed through its
agents.
Crl. M.C. No. 827 of 2010 Page 2 of 6
X X X
8. Inasmuch as all criminal and quasi-criminal
offences are creatures of statute, the amenability of
the corporation to prosecution necessarily depends
upon the terminology employed in the statute. In the
case of strict liability, the terminology employed by
the legislature is such as to reveal an intent that guilt
shall not be predicated upon the automatic breach of
the statute but on the establishment of the actus reus,
subject to the defence of due diligence. The law is
primarily based on the terms of the statutes. In the
case of absolute liability where the legislature by the
clearest intendment establishes an offence where
liability arises instantly upon the breach of the
statutory prohibition, no particular state of mind is a
prerequisite to guilt. Corporations and individual
persons stand on the same footing in the face of such
a statutory offence. It is a case of automatic primary
responsibility. It is only in a case requiring mens rea,
a question arises whether a corporation could be
attributed with requisite mens rea to prove the guilt.
But as we are not concerned with this question in
these proceedings, we do not express any opinion on
that issue."
In Kalpnath Rai Vs. State, 1998 AIR (SC) 201, SC made following
observations:
Crl. M.C. No. 827 of 2010 Page 3 of 6
"The company is not a natural person. We are
aware that in many recent penal statutes, companies
or corporations are deemed to be offenders on the
strength of the acts committed by persons responsible
for the management of affairs of such company or
corporations e.g. Essential Commodities Act,
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act etc. But there is
no such provision in TADA which makes the company
liable for the acts of its officers. Hence, there is no
scope whatsoever to prosecute a company for the
offence under Section 3(4) of TADA. The corollary is
that the conviction passed against A-12 is liable to be
set aside."
In Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Vinay Kumar Sood & Ors, 2009 (1) JCC
756, this court had observed as under:
"Undisputedly, the petitioner is a bank incorporated in
England with limited liability by Royal Charter, 1853
and, therefore, is a corporation/company. A company
cannot be in any case held to have committed an
offence under Section 500 IPC because; most essential
ingredient of the said offence i.e. 'mens rea' would be
missing as a company is a juristic entity or an artificial
person, whereas a Director is not a company. The
company may be made liable for offences, however, if
there is anything in the definition or context of a
particular Section or a particular statute which would
prevent the application of the said section to a limited
Crl. M.C. No. 827 of 2010 Page 4 of 6
company, the limited company cannot be proceeded
against. There are number of provisions of law in
which it would be physically impossible by a limited
company to commit the offence. A limited company,
therefore, cannot generally be tried for offences where
mens rea is essential. Similarly, a company cannot
face the punishment of imprisonment for obvious
reasons that company cannot be sent to prison by way
of a sentence."
5. The offence of criminal negligence requires a specific state of mind in
respect of the person committing the offence. The offence of medical
criminal negligence cannot be fastened on the company since the company
can neither treat nor operate a patient of its own. It is the Doctor working in
the company who treats & performs operations. It is the Doctor who
examines the patients and prescribes medicines. If there is a deliberate or
negligent act of the Doctor working in the Corporation/Hospital, it is the
liability of the Doctor and not of the Corporation for criminal negligence
despite the fact that due to the act of the Doctor of treating patients the
Corporation was getting some revenue. These days, all Doctors with big
hospitals, are on panels where they have fixed fee for examination of patients
and for conducting operations. Out of this fee, a percentage is paid to the
hospital. The hospital/company cannot be held liable for the personal
negligence of the Doctor in giving wrong treatment. However, if there is an
Crl. M.C. No. 827 of 2010 Page 5 of 6
administrative negligence, or a negligence of not providing basic
infrastructure, which results into some harm to an aggrieved person or such
negligence which is impersonal, the hospital can be held liable. But, in the
case of medical negligence, which is personal to the Doctor who gave
treatment, the Corporation would not be liable and it is the Doctor who can
be indicted for medial criminal negligence.
6. I therefore, allow this petition in respect of the petitioner. The order
passed by learned M.M. qua the petitioner is hereby quashed.
AUGUST 02, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
