Court denies anticipatory bail to Paediatric Surgeon Accused of Negligence in 5-Year-Old's Death

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Emphasising the need for custodial interrogation to gather evidence in the case, an Aurangabad Additional Sessions Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail application of a paediatric surgeon, booked in a medical negligence case along with 5 others following the death of a five-year-old boy during an operation for phimosis with penile torsion, a genital related disorder. 

Medical Dialogues in November 2024 reported that based on an official medical board report that revealed that the five-year-old boy did not die from complications related to a genital disorder, six doctors including, an anaesthetist and paediatric surgeon, were booked in a medical negligence case. 

The father of the deceased son who is a city-based advocate blamed the doctors for his son's death. He claimed that his son was taken for an operation for phimosis with penile torsion, a genital-related disorder, however, instead his son died from multi-organ failure due to septicaemia following a hypoxic brain. 

Also read- 6 doctors booked for alleged negligence after 5-year-old dies during treatment

According to the report submitted by the medical board of the Govt Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), the boy developed a ‘hypoxic brain' during the operation, and the genital-related disorder he was suffering from itself was ruled out as the cause of death. He died on May 6, 2024. 

Presently, the surgeon in custody had submitted a bail application before the Sessions Court, presenting his perspective on the matter. In his defence, the doctor argued that there was an unexplained delay of 205 days in filing the police report as the boy passed away on May 6 and maintained that he had cooperated fully during the investigation. He clarified that he was not the hospital owner where the surgery took place and had already provided CCTV footage and relevant documents to the authorities.

He further alleged that the child's death was not directly linked to his actions as the operating surgeon since the expert committee report did not mention his action as the primary reason. Citing his experience of performing over 6,000 surgeries, he informed the court that the evidence against him was primarily documentary and electronic.

The prosecution, however, presented a different viewpoint of the case. It argued that the doctor avoided providing accurate information to the child's family during his treatment and that the applicant doctor would threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence if released on bail. 

"During the entire period of treatment, when the informant was making inquiries, the doctors avoided giving correct information. The documents regarding case papers and treatment of the child are required to be seized. The articles used in the operation theatre were to be inquired about. It is necessary to find out whether CCTV footage of the relevant time had been purposefully deleted," the prosecution as reported by TOI. 

While hearing the matter, Single Bench Judge N.M. Jamadar noted that the discrepancy was grave as per the report of experts. He further said that as such, a prima facie possibility cannot be ruled out that despite being in a noble profession, doctors may have tampered with the medical evidence and CCTV records, besides the record of treatment of the child.

"The case is regarding the death of an unfortunate child when he was suffering from a minor disease. As such, I am of the considered view that unless custodial interrogation of the applicant is done, the investigation cannot proceed further. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is also necessary for reason of collecting evidence. Though the entire evidence is either documentary or electronic in nature of CCTV footage and DVR, the electronic device used during course of treatment is also material. The investigation officer has to examine the possibility of its tampering," said the court. 

Further, the court observed, "No discretion can be exercised in favour of the applicant for the grant of anticipatory bail. Being a doctor, the applicant should have cooperated with the investigation. When he is seeking anticipatory bail, prima facie, a possibility cannot be ruled out that he may flee or threaten the prosecution witnesses or tamper with important records or evidence if released on bail."

Considering both sides, the court concluded that the investigation required the applicant's custodial interrogation and therefore rejected his bail application on January 21. 

Also read- Doctor, Nurse booked over cannula insertion pricks, as patient alleges they were drunk