Telangana High Court

Dr. G. Ravi Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 29 January, 2024

           HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                       AT HYDERABAD

                                 *****
                 Criminal Petition No.3416 OF 2021
Between:


1. Dr.G.Ravi Kumar
2. Dr.Anjaiah                                ... Petitioners/A1 & A2

                              And
1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana         ...Respondent
2. Smt.Birelli Satyavathi                     ...Respondent/defacto
                                                    complainant


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:                  29.01.2024

Submitted for approval.



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to see the         Yes/No
      Judgments?

 2    Whether the copies of judgment may
      be marked to Law Reporters/Journals          Yes/No

 3    Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
      wish to see the fair copy of the             Yes/No
      Judgment?


                                               __________________
                                                K.SURENDER, J
                                     2


             * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER


                       + CRL.P. No. 3416 of 2021


% Dated 29.01.2024

# 1. Dr.G.Ravi Kumar
  2. Dr.Anjaiah                             ... Petitioners/A1 & A2

                               And
$ 1. The State of Telangana,
  Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
  High Court for the State of Telangana       ...Respondent
2. Smt.Birelli Satyavathi                     ...Respondent/defacto
                                                    complainant

! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa


^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
                               Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
                               Sri N.Yadishwar for R2
>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

   1. (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1
   2. (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741
                                  3


         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3416 OF 2021
O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A1

& A2, to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.4878 of 2018

on the file of XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,

L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The offence alleged against the

petitioners is under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused

the record.

3. The son of the defacto complainant had a blister on his right

leg. She approached these petitioners who are doctors in Sai

Sanjeevani Hospital, Saroornagar, for treatment. The petitioners

allegedly suggested that there was no need of any operation and it

would be cured by injections. However, the blister was not cured

and has become complicated, for which reason, the complainant

took her son to Xenia Hospital at ECIL. There, the doctors informed

that on account of the incorrect diagnosis and treatment given

earlier, the injury has became complicated necessitating an

operation for which Rs.75,000/- was charged.

4. Aggrieved by the said inefficiency of these petitioners in curing

her son, a complaint was filed on the ground that their inefficiency

resulted in the complainant's son being operated upon while

incurring an expenditure of Rs.75,000/-.

5. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet under Section

336 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that the Honourable Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of

Punjab and another 1 held that the doctors can only be prosecuted

after the investigation officer has taken independent medical

opinion from a competent and qualified person in the branch of

medical practice who can give an impartial and unbiased opinion.

The relevant paragraph is as follows;

"52.............A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service, qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an

(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1

impartial and unbiased opinion applying the Bolam test (Bolam v. Friern hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582) to the facts collected in the investigation."

7. Counsel further argued that for not following the guidelines of

the Honourable Supreme court in Jacob Mathew's case, the

proceedings have to be quashed.

8. Learned Counsel further relied on the Judgment of

A.V.S.Narayanan Rao v. Ratnamala and another 2. In the said

case, the Honourable Supreme Court quashed the proceedings

under Section 304 A of IPC on the ground that the complainant did

not make out a case of gross negligence. Further, opinion of the

third party doctors in determining medical negligence was not taken

while filing charge sheet.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent would submit that even doctors can be prosecuted as an

ordinary person and they cannot escape the eye of law. In the

present case their incompetence as medical practitioners led to

complications in the child's blister on the leg and he had to be

operated upon. Fort he said reason, the proceedings have to go on

and it is for the trial Court to determine the complicity or otherwise

of the petitioners.

(2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741

10. The Police except examining the defacto complainant, has not

sought any help from a professional in the medical field to

substantiate that the act of the petitioners as doctors while treating

the son of the defacto complainant was negligent, reckless and the

said treatment by petitioners resulted in the situation in which the

son of defacto complainant was in. Only on the statement made by

the defacto complainant that the doctors failed to provide proper

treatment, would not attract the offence under Section 336 of the

Indian Penal Code.

336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.--Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.

11. To attract the offence under Section 336 of IPC, a person

should have done any act so rashly or negligently endangering

human life or personal safety. As already stated, there is no

evidence as to what are the acts committed by the petitioners who

are doctors endangering the life of the son of the defacto

complainant. Only for the reason of the defacto complainant stating

that the treatment given by the doctors did not result in curing the

problem of her son and he had to be taken to two different hospitals

for treatment, cannot be made basis for criminal prosecution under

Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. For the reasons of not taking any expert opinion during the

course of investigation and also witnesses merely stating that the