Supreme Court Denies Bail To Acupressure Practitioner For Allegedly Treating Gangrene Without Qualification Resulting In Amputation

“On going through the materials disclosed, we do (not) think any error was committed by the High Court in rejecting the plea of the petitioners for anticipatory bail. However, six weeks time is given to the petitioners to surrender and apply for regular bail before the Trial Court”, a bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed in the matter.

AOR Saksham Maheshwari appeared for the petitioner, and AOR Ajay Pal appeared for the respondent.

In the pertinent matter, the petitioner-accused is alleged of offences under Sections 338, 406, 420 IPC and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act.

In the present case it was alleged that the father of the complainant was diabetic and a heart patient as well. Upon recommendation and assurance, he started getting treatment from Dr. Mamta Kapoor. However, at the time of discharge from the clinic, the accused did not give any document despite asking time and again but promised to give the complete summary of treatment and discharge.

It was further submitted that the patient post the treatment started having acute pain in the left foot and resultantly, it was diagnosed that gangrene has infected the entire left leg, which has to be amputated failing which it will endanger his life. The reasons for such severe infection was the alleged wrong and negligent medical treatment given by the petitioner-accused.

The State vehemently opposing the application contended that the petitioner-accused only had a degree of BEMS (Master Degree Certificate in Acupressure) and thus was not qualified to treat the patient suffering from disease like gangrene.

Furthermore, it was submitted that she was even made aware of the other medical issues like diabetes and heart ailments of the father of the complainant, however still she chose to give false assurance of curing the disease. As a result of medical negligence, the father of the complainant lost left leg which had been amputated below the knee.

It was also contended that she is practicing as a 'doctor' without having any licence and is already facing complaints and is thus being allowed to play with the lives of innocent people.

The bench earlier while denying to grant anticipatory bail to the accused as it was convinced that the custodial interrogation is necessary to move the investigation, had observed, “This Court is sanguine of the fact that the petitioner-accused, even according to her possessed qualification for acupressure and Electro- Homeopathy Medical System, has a duty to act with a reasonable degree of care and skill has an implied undertaking of not to give a chance for breach of such duty, has given a cause of action for negligence which resulted into huge damage to the father of the complainant, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever. Such loss will not only disable a person from routine course of his life but will also keep on pricking in his mind to cause consistent mental cruelty and harassment apart from embarrassment in daily routine in the society at large”.

Cause Title: Mamta Rani & Ors. v. State Of Punjab