Medical Negligence Complaint Can’t Be Entertained Unless There Is Prima Facie Evidence From Another Doctor To Support It: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court clarified that a private complaint cannot be entertained unless there is prima facie evidence being produced in the form of credible opinion of another doctor to support the negligence of the accused doctor.
The Court was dealing with a petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In view of the above two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that a private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor.”
Advocate Rajeev Kumar Sinha appeared for the petitioner while APP Fahad Allam and Advocate Praveen Shankar Prasad appeared for the opposite parties.
Factual Background -
A complaint case was lodged alleging that the complainant was the younger son of the deceased woman who died due to the gross medical negligence committed by the accused doctors while she was admitted in the hospital. In 2011, the deceased patient complained about her weakness and trouble in passing of urine and therefore, she was taken into the hospital. After consultation with the petitioner, the deceased was admitted in the CCU as she was suffering from Urinary tract infection. The petitioner asked to purchase some medicines and it was also suggested that since she was suffering from high blood sugar, insulin was required to be administered.
However, the hospital was not providing comprehensive care or support, but rather only prescribing medication that patients had to buy from a shop affiliated with the hospital. Moreover, the hospital also collected some amount even after the death of the patient (deceased) and the complainant was totally unaware about the reason of her death. One day on scrutinizing the medical record of the deceased, the complainant realised that due to heavy administration of Insulin, her mother died. Also, the instrument used for treating of glucose was faulty that led to erroneous reading of the blood sugar level. Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner doctor.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “It appears that to allow the proceeding to continue, will amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
The Court relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 and Martin F. D’ Souza v. Md. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1. In the former case, the Apex Court laid down the guidelines for the future governing the prosecution of doctors for offences having ingredients of criminal rashness or medical negligence. And in the latter one, the Court emphasised on referring the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors specialised in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceeding against the petitioner doctor.
Cause Title- Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak @ Dr. S.K. Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand
