Patient death after gallbladder surgery: HC Clears MBBS Doctor of Malicious ST, SC Act Charges, Quashes IPC 304A

However, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi ruled that the allegations were baseless and that the proceedings had been initiated with malicious intent and even the SC/ST Act was added to harass the doctor.

The case concerned Dr Prasad, who sought the quashing of criminal proceedings linked to Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 184 of 2022, which had been registered on October 12, 2022. The complaint accused Dr Prasad and four unnamed individuals of medical negligence, fraud, and caste-based abuse.

The complaint, filed by a Scheduled Caste member, alleged that his mother had undergone gall bladder surgery at Dr Prasad's clinic in May 2020. The physician reportedly charged Rs 1 lakh for the surgery and medication. After being discharged, the patient experienced severe complications and was re-admitted, spending an additional Rs 50,000. Despite further treatment, her condition worsened, and she passed away on June 17, 2020, after being referred to Medica Hospital in Ranchi.

The death certificate from Medica Hospital cited infection and adverse medication reactions as the cause of death. Additionally, the complainant alleged that Dr Prasad was not a qualified surgeon and performed the surgery himself.

The complainant also claimed that on July 14, 2020, Dr Prasad and others visited his home, subjected him to caste-based slurs, and spat on him in front of local residents. These allegations led to the filing of the FIR under Sections 304A (causing death by negligence), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

In his petition, Dr Prasad's counsel argued that the criminal proceedings were baseless and malicious. The petitioners highlighted that the complaint was converted into an FIR after a court order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), leading to a police investigation. Dr Prasad's counsel emphasized that Dr Prasad is a qualified MBBS doctor and a faculty member in the Department of Anatomy at Shahid Nirmal Mahto Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad.

Regarding the treatment of the complainant’s mother, the counsel clarified that Dr Prasad was not the surgeon but part of the post-operative care team. Dr Kumar, a visiting surgeon, had performed the surgery. The patient was discharged in stable condition but was later re-admitted due to complications and eventually referred to Medica Hospital, where she passed away.

The counsel further noted that the complainant had previously sent a legal notice demanding Rs 10 lakh in compensation, which Dr Prasad refused. The complaint was filed after this refusal, and the inclusion of charges under the SC/ST Act was alleged to be a tactic to harass Dr Prasad.

The counsel for Dr Prasad cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), which established that allegations of medical negligence require expert medical opinion to substantiate claims of liability. No such expert opinion was presented in this case, and the counsel argued that the allegations were insufficient to support a criminal prosecution.

The court reviewed the arguments and noted that the respondent did not dispute Dr. Prasad’s account of the treatment. It also acknowledged that Dr Prasad had not performed the surgery, which was conducted by Dr Rajiv Kumar. The court found no evidence of medical negligence or any link between Dr Prasad’s actions and the patient's death.

The court emphasized that allegations of criminal negligence require gross recklessness, not simple errors or acceptable treatment methods. It referred to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, noting that its application in criminal cases is limited. The court found that the allegations failed to meet the threshold for criminal negligence, reinforcing that medical negligence cases must involve gross negligence or a reckless disregard for standards.

It observed,"“It is crystal clear that what medical negligence made by this doctor while treatment upon the mother of the respondent no.2 is not disclosed and if such a situation is there for making out a case of medical negligence, one has to comply with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab.'”

The court also addressed the application of the SC/ST Act, stating that for an offense under this Act to be made out, the abuse must occur in a "place within public view." The court ruled that the incident took place inside the complainant's house, with no evidence that the remarks were made in public or in the presence of people who were not relatives or friends. Therefore, the allegations under the SC/ST Act did not meet the legal criteria. It noted;

“As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered 'in any place within public view' is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named, but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh v. State [(2008) 8 SCC 435], it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet."

The court quashed the criminal proceedings, stating that the FIR and subsequent legal action constituted an abuse of the judicial process. It noted that the essential ingredients of the alleged offense were absent, and allowing the case to proceed would be unjustified. It observed;

“When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified, leading to abuse of the process of law.”

The court found that the case had been filed maliciously to harass Dr Prasad, and the charges under the SC/ST Act were baseless. It observed that the death of the complainant's mother had not occurred in Dr Prasad’s clinic, but after she had been treated at Medica Hospital. It observed;

“Thus, it appears that maliciously the present case has been filed and even the SC/ST Act has been added; however, the ingredient of the SC/ST Act is not made out.”

Subsequently, the court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, ruling that the case lacked merit and had been filed maliciously to harass Dr Prasad. The court's decision was based on a lack of evidence for medical negligence and a clear abuse of legal processes. It held;

“It is crystal clear that maliciously the present case has been lodged against the petitioner and it is an admitted fact that the death of the mother of the respondent no.2 has not taken place in the hospital of the petitioner, and she was discharged from that hospital and subsequently treated in Medica Hospital at Ranchi. Even if the case is lodged under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency of services in light of Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, the doctor is not required to be noticed at the threshold, and only after obtaining the opinion of an expert, notice may be issued for medical negligence.”

“As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, reasons, and analysis, it is a malicious prosecution against the petitioner (doctor). Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 184 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge (SC/ST), Dhanbad, is hereby quashed. W.P.(Cr) No. 528 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.”

To view the original judgement, click on the link below: