Skip to main content

Every careless act of doctors not criminal: HC

In what might sound music to the ears of the medical fraternity, the Hyderabad high court has held that when a patient agrees to go for medical treatment or surgical operation, every careless act of the medical staff cannot be termed as criminal.

Justice B S Ravi Kumar gave the ruling while allowing a plea by Dr P Malathi and Dr L Sudhakar, who sought suspension of a criminal complaint against them in a lower court of the city. While delivering the verdict, the judge relied upon the decision of the British House of Lords in RV Adomako case, in which the they held that a doctor cannot be held criminally responsible for the death of patients unless his negligence or incompetence showed such disregard for the life and safety of his patient as to amount to a crime against the state.

Applying the findings to the present case, the judge said, "It can be termed criminal only when the medical man exhibits a gross lack of competence or inaction and wanton indifference to his patients' safety and which is found to have arisen from gross ignorance or gross negligence."

The present case arose when a woman brought for treatment at Shalini Nursing Home in the city died while under treatment. Her husband and parents initially moved the consumer forum, which held that there was no negligence on part of the doctors. The husband then moved the AP Medical Council and its Ethical and Malpractices Committee, which also ruled out negligence and said the woman had died due to a rare complication of Amniotic Fluid Embolism. The husband also moved the Medical Council of India against Dr Sudhakar and the MCI passed an order against the doctor, which was later set aside by the AP high court.

Later, the patient's parents initiated criminal proceedings against the doctors before a lower court in the city. After perusing the evidence on record and the legal position, the judge found that the patient's body was taken away by her family members without conducting the post-mortem. The judge also noted that the incident took place on March 6, 2003 and the complaint before the court was filed on Feb 12, 2004. If death was doubted, the complainant should not have waited for such a long time, they felt.

The judge pointed out that "it is not in dispute that the complainant is a senior advocate and the husband of the deceased a senior bureaucrat and both of them have not insisted on the post mortem and took the dead body, but have not raised even their little finger nearly for a year on this aspect"

Quashing the criminal proceedings, Justice Ravi Kumar said, "I am of the view that there is no material showing gross negligence or recklessness on the part of these two petitioners for the death of the deceased and the ingredients of Section 304-A of IPC are not at all attracted against the petitioners."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Every-careless-act-of-doctors-not-criminal-HC/articleshow/38574547.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...