No relief to Paediatric Surgeon accused in medical negligence case, Court rejects anticipatory bail

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Observing discrepancies in medical documentation and evidence, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has denied the anticipatory bail plea of a pediatric surgeon accused of medical negligence in the death of a five-year-old boy. The surgeon, along with five other doctors, has been booked in the case following complications during a surgery for phimosis with penile torsion, a genital disorder. 

While dismissing the surgeon’s plea, Justice Arun Pednekar stated, "There is suppression of the procedure undertaken in the OT (operation theatre) and also in the PICU (paediatric intensive care unit). The CCTV footage in the OT does not correspond to the clinical notes. Prima facie, it appears that real reasons leading to the cause of death of the child are sought to be suppressed. As such, it would be difficult for this court to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant." 

The surgeon had moved the high court after his bail application was rejected by an Aurangabad additional sessions court in January 2025, which emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation to gather evidence.

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

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 septicemia following a hypoxic brain.

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.

In his bail application, the surgeon argued that there was an unexplained 205-day delay in filing the FIR. He also cited an August 13, 2024, GMCH committee report that found no negligence in the treatment provided. The doctor maintained that he had cooperated fully with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, emphasizing his experience of performing over 6,000 paediatric surgeries, reports TOI.

The GMCH committee’s report stated, “Considering all the provided treatment records, other documents, and the CCTV footage of the patient, it is observed that the standard medical treatment protocol has been reasonably followed in the operation theatre and in PICU. Accordingly, it can be opined that there was no visible medical negligence in the treatment of the patient.”

However, the boy’s father challenged the GMCH report, leading to a fresh investigation. A second expert committee, formed after a high court directive on October 14, concluded that medical negligence had played a role in the child's death. The committee’s report, dated July 11, 2024, attributed the cause of death to “multi-organ failure due to septicaemia following hypoxic brain damage” post-surgery. The report also alleged that after the medical negligence incident, the doctor and his team deliberately manipulated records to conceal evidence.

Referring to this report, the high court observed, "It is of the view that the mishap occurred on account of lapses on the part of the anaesthetist/surgeon. The CCTV footage does not match with the clinical notes and thus, it is clear that there has been some error in the OT which resulted in the mishap and that the operating doctors thereafter tried to cover up the situation and did not give clear information to the relatives of the patient and continued to keep the relatives of the child in the dark about the prognosis and possible outcome and thereafter, the hospital continued to charge for the treatment of the patient till his demise." 

The court also raised concerns over missing ICU CCTV footage from April 26 to May 5, questioning why recordings for earlier and later periods were available but not for the critical timeframe.

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