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

The bench observed that the Supreme Court also referred to the "Bolam test” as the standard which determines that a medical professional has performed his duty to provide care to the patient and that the procedure meant to treat the patient, has been duly followed by the medical professionals.

The case goes back to 2022 when the son of the petitioner was admitted to Ashish Hospital, Jabalpur on 27.1.2022 at about 11:15 AM for the purpose of surgery of a stone. On 27.1.2022, at about 8:00 PM, the surgery was conducted for about one hour and after the surgery, the patient was shifted to a normal ward. On 29.1.2022 at about 7:00 AM, the patient started feeling pain in his chest and fell down. The petitioner claimed that the patient was not provided any emergency medical care back, therefore, the patient died due to cardiac arrest.

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.

The Court Order:

The bench observed that the complaints moved by the petitioner were taken note of and the Chief Medical and Health Officer vide his communication dated 8.6.2022 constituted a committee and the said committee, which consisted of two Doctors including one Doctor being an expert in the field of surgery, submitted its report and accordingly, in view of the said report the Authorities could have taken no action.

The counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the report of the Medical Board, Umaria but the same is of no assistance to him as the said committee did not inspect the Hospital. However, if the report is perused from any angle nowhere suggests that the Doctors conducted the surgery in negligent and rash manner or the Doctors had not followed a settled procedure of surgery in terms of medical science. “This Court is of the considered view that as the onus was on the petitioner to establish that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the Doctors concerned and said onus having not been discharged in terms of the law laid down in Jacob Mathew (supra), this Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of the merits,” the court added.

The bench further mentioned:

It is reiterated that the Police officials cannot be expected to act in a mechanical manner when they are clueless about the ailment suffered by the patient, diagnosis by the medical professional, and the treatment so provided to the patient. The said procedure falls within the domain of the experts of the medical science and, therefore, the FIR cannot be lodged in a routine manner in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathews (supra).

To view the order, Click on the below link: