Dr.P.D.Annapurna vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 3544 Tel

        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

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

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

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

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