Tamil Nadu Doctors threaten indefinite strike, protest criminal prosecution of Colleagues in Footballer Death case

Thereafter, 2 doctors of the Government Peripheral Hospital were placed under suspension for alleged medical negligence.

Recently, the Madras High Court denied granting anticipatory bail to those two doctors AP Orthopedics and CMO who had been accused for alleged botched up surgery of teen footballer R Priya.

Refusing to release them, the High Court bench comprising of Justice A D Jagadish Chandira noted that the issue was still in the initial phase and the probe was still incomplete.

While the bench did not grant any relief to the doctors, it has issued directions to the police not to harass their family members.

Meanwhile, the matter was reported extensively and several media reports claimed that special teams of police had been constituted to track the absconding doctors.

Taking cognizance of these issues, the Tamil Nadu Government Doctors' Association (TNGDA) raised its voice against the possible arrest of these doctors and warned to go on indefinite strike if police arrested them. The association also demanded that the authorities should withdraw the case of criminal negligence against the doctors.

"# Doctor should not be arrested like accused of murder under Section 304A . Tamil Nadu Government Doctors Association #Tngda announces protest if doctors are arrested in connection with football player Priya's death," the association had mentioned on Twitter.

Speaking about this, Dr. K Senthil, the president of the association told Medical Dialogues, "The Supreme Court had laid down certain guidelines for approaching the case of medical negligence. As per the Apex Court's rules, after getting complaint against doctors, police should seek opinion from senior specialist doctors and only on the basis of the report police registers a case. The Court had also clarified that even in cases of criminal negligence, it was unnecessary to arrest the doctors since it was unlikely that the doctors would tamper with the records."

Referring to this case, he added, "In this case, the specialist doctor opined it to be civil negligence. Although police had initially booked the doctors under section 174 (for unnatural death), later they converted it to IPC 304A (causing death by negligence)."

Dr. Senthil also referred to the media reports in this regard and mentioned, "Several reports were claiming that the police teams were tracking down the absconding doctors. Those doctors were being portrayed as murderers. That's why we thought there is a limit it is necessary to address the issue. So, we demanded that the police should not arrest the doctors and IPC Section 304A should also be withdrawn against them. Suspension was alright, but the investigation process and all the proceedings should be in compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines."

When asked about the response from the Government, he clarified, "After we submitted our demands to the Government, the Health Minister responded and assured that the Government has taken note of the issue. The Government has also assured us that those doctors will not be arrested and after completing the preliminary inquiry, they will also withdraw the IPC 304A."

It should be mentioned in this context that the Supreme Court bench comprising of CJI R.C Lahoti and Justices G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan while considering the case of Jacob Matthew Vs. State of Punjab had specified certain guidelines while prosecuting a doctors accused of medical negligence.

Addressing the issue of booking doctors under IPC 304A, the Apex Court had noted back in 2005, "The investigating officer and the private complainant cannot always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A of IPC. The criminal process once initiated subjects the medical professional to serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment. He has to seek bail to escape arrest, which may or may not be granted to him. At the end he may be exonerated by acquittal or discharge but the loss which he has suffered in his reputation cannot be compensated by any standards."

"We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasize the need for care and caution in the interest of society; for, the service which the medical profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefers recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be guarded against," it had further added.

Expert opinion:

Back then, the top court had also clarified that the police should obtain opinion of a specialist doctor before initiating the proceedings. The court had observed, "The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam's test to the facts collected in the investigation."

Arrest of Doctors: 

Regarding the arrest of doctors accused of medical negligence, the Apex Court had opined, "A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigation officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld."

Also Read: No Bail for AP Orthopedics, CMO over death of teenage footballer due to Delay in removal of Tourniquet