Police Authorities cannot proceed against medical professional in routine manner: MP HC comes to rescue of a doctor

Petitioner’s Submission:

The petitioner submitted that on account of negligence while conducting the surgery, the son of the petitioner died, and to substantiate the said contention, the counsel for the petitioner stressed on the fact that the Blood Pressure reading of the patient was high and in such circumstances, the surgery could not have been conducted. It was submitted that despite High Blood pressure, the patient's surgery was performed, which amounted to medical negligence and comes within the purview of an offence under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. It was also the petitioner's grievance that the conduct of the officials of the Ashish Hospital was suspicious as different IDs were provided in the ECG report of the patient and no expert opinion was obtained.

Expert Committee Report:

The petitioner highlighted his grievance by approaching various Authorities and the Chief Medical and Health Officer, then, constituted a committee to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry was conducted by two qualified Doctors and one of them was a Master of Surgery (General Surgery). The committee of both the Doctors submitted a report and in the said report, it was clearly mentioned that for different kinds of investigations in the Hospital, there were no different counters and thus, there was a difference in ID numbers as well as time.

The committee also stated that the basic investigation of a patient is conducted before admission and ultimately the persons accompanying the patient are instructed to make the payment and obtain receipt thereof. In the meantime, the ECG investigation of the patient was completed and thus, there was the possibility of a different time so far as it related to conducting the ECG investigation as well as issuance of receipt of ECG. The committee also dealt with the aspect of conducting surgery where the Blood Pressure is 150/90 or 150/94 

The committee reported that all the emergency equipment was available at the Hospital. The Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory (CATH lab) and all life-saving drugs were available in the Hospital and at the time of cardiac arrest, the treatment was given by the doctor. The committee concluded that after obtaining the medical fitness report of the patient, the surgery was not conducted in a traditional manner but it was conducted through laparoscopy, in which a hole is made to perform the surgery. It was also stated in the report that after the surgery, the patient did not make any complaint and as such, the surgery was successful. Thus, it is argued by the defendant from the report of the committee, that the entire procedure was carried out in terms of the settled principles of medical science.