Madras HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Case Against A Doctor For Alleged Medical Negligence During Hair Transplant Resulting In Death

In the pertinent matter, it was averred that post-treatment, de facto complainant’s son was taken to the nearby Guest Hospital, to treat his fever, thereafter, his mother took him to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore on May 16, 2016, however, unfortunately, he died on May 17, 2016. The cause of death in the postmortem report was, “Refractory shock and metabolic Acidosis Anaphylactic shock, Toxic Shock Syndrome, Septic Shock, Multiorgan Dysfunltion- Acute Renal Failure.”

Accordingly, while observing that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet does not constitute the ingredients of the offence alleged, a bench of Justice V. Sivagnanam noted, “It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is clear from the fact that there is a question of fact involved whether the centre is fit to do any hair transplant and whether the petitioner is competent to do hair transplant. Therefore, it cannot be adjudicated in this proceed”.

Advocate V. Sairam appeared for the petitioner, Government Advocate L. Baskaran appeared for the State, and Advocate V. Sivalingam appeared for the suo motu impleaded respondent-mother of the deceased.

As per the facts, ARHT Global Clinic is owned by the first accused Dr. Santhosh Kumar while Dr.Vinith the petitioner herein (second accused) treated the deceased.

In the present matter, it was alleged that the cause of death was because the hair transplantation was done by an untrained petitioner without any basic facilities at ARHT Global Clinic Centre. Therefore, since the procedure was carried out by a doctor who did not possess the required qualification, and without the knowledge the act was done, resultantly death was the likely outcome and thereby the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC.

However, the petitioner contended that the trial court erred in taking the cognizance of the case since simply because a patient did not respond to the treatment, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence much less criminal negligence. Furthermore, while relying on a catena of judgments further argued that an essential ingredient of mens rea cannot be excluded from consideration when the charge in the criminal Court consists of criminal negligence which was admittedly absent in the present case, even if the entire materials are considered to be true.

However, refuting to accept the submission of the petitioner, the court further held, “The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not helpful to support the case of the petitioner, since the case involved adjudication of factual dispute. Therefore, it does not meet the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others 2021 SCC online 315 & Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar & Anr 1985 Crl.L.J.817, the matter has to be enquired to find out the truth. Therefore, I find no merit in the present criminal original petition”.

Accordingly, the bench dismissed the criminal original petition.

Cause Title: Dr. Vinith v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police