Delhi HC bars doctor from running medical centre during trial, says 'livelihood not violated'

New Delhi: In a recent order, the Delhi High Court has held that if a bail condition restricts a doctor, involved in a medical crime, from running a medical centre till the completion of the trial, it does not violate the right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The HC bench made this observation while considering an application by a doctor seeking modification in the bail condition granted for offences punishable under Sections 304, 419, 420, 196, 197, 198, 201, and 201B of the Indian Penal Code.

Refusing to modify the condition, the Court noted, "This Court is also of the view that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not violated by the Condition No.(d) of Paragraph 32, because the Applicant can continue to practice his profession as a doctor, as running a medical centre is not the only way in which the Applicant can practise his profession."

The complaint was filed against the doctor, alleging that the complainant's husband was suffering from acute pain in the abdomen, and for this, they consulted a local doctor who administered an injection to her husband for immediate relief and referred them to the Medical Centre for further treatment.

However, after reaching the concerned medical centre, they met the owner of the medical centre, Dr Agarwal, who told them that he has a super specialist team of doctors, including an expert in removing gallbladder stones and a fee of Rs 35,000 was quoted for the said operation.

Also Read: Vision loss after cataract surgery: ESI Hospital Chennai slapped Rs 10 lakh compensation

The complainant alleged that when the patient was brought out of the operating theatre, he was suffering from severe pain and blood was oozing from his belly. It was alleged that the complainant was asked to take her husband to some other hospital, and accordingly, referral papers were prepared, and an ambulance was also arranged. However, when the complainant's husband was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, he was declared as brought dead.

Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered. On the other hand, the prosecution alleged that the doctor at the Centre did not conduct the surgery, but only had prepared the surgery note on the request of the Applicant doctor, and the surgeons who are not qualified to perform surgeries are conducting surgeries at the centre.

Later, the Court granted bail to the Applicants with conditions. Filing the case before the HC bench, the counsel for the Applicant stated that one of the conditions mentioned in the bail violates the Applicant's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it deprives him of his livelihood.

The counsel also argued that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of every accused, until proven guilty, and this condition actually holds the Applicant guilty even before the trial is over. He also submitted that the said condition is extremely onerous as the Applicant would be unable to live his life with dignity.

While considering the matter, the HC bench observed that, undoubtedly, the condition of granting bail is only to ensure proper and fair investigation, which cannot be impeded or hampered by the fact that the accused is at large.

"Undoubtedly the condition of granting bail is only for ensuring proper and fair investigation which cannot be impeded or hampered by the fact that the accused is at large. Conditions can be imposed for securing the attendance of the accused as and when required either by the Investigating Officer or by the Court and to secure a fair trial by the witnesses who may be examined during the trial free and un-interfered with by the accused. Any condition which has no reference in the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial cannot be countenanced as permissible under law," observed the HC bench.

"It is also well settled that an essential requirement of imposing any condition is that the Court must be extremely wary and see that they maintain a balance between personal liberty and the right of the Police to investigate the case...Be that as it may, the Courts can impose conditions to ensure that the person who has been accused of an offence does not commit an offence similar to the offence which he is accused of or is suspect or commission of which he is suspect. In the present case, the allegation against the Applicant, who was running a medical centre, is that persons who were not qualified were conducting surgeries. Only keeping that allegation in mind, the condition restricting the Applicant herein from running a medical centre was imposed by this Court," it further noted.

Taking note of the fact that the bail condition does not restrict the doctor from conducting his medical activities elsewhere, the bench observed,

"The Applicant, who is a doctor by profession, is not precluded from being associated with any medical centre for earning his livelihood. He can conduct his medical activities in a centre other than the centre which he is running or operating, as the allegation against him is that while running a medical centre, person(s) who were not qualified to perform surgeries performed such surgeries."

"...This Court also cannot shut its eyes to the allegations made in the present case. Condition No.(d), as stated above, does not take away the bread and butter of the Applicant, who is a doctor, who can carry out his profession as a doctor by being associated with any other medical centre of his choice where he can work. The fact that he is precluded from running the centre till the conclusion of the trial does not take away his livelihood...In this light, the Condition No.(d) of Paragraph 32 imposed on the Applicant directing him not to run his own medical centre, in the opinion of this Court, is not onerous. The condition which is imposed is because in a medical centre which is run by him, the possibility of similar offence being committed is not ruled out, which is one of the precursors laid down under Section 437(3) of the CrPC," it noted.

Accordingly, the bench dismissed the application, further noting, "As far as Condition No.(c) of Paragraph 32 is concerned, since investigation is complete and the trial has commenced, the said condition is waived and modified to the extent that the Applicant is directed to surrender his Passport, if not already deposited, before the concerned Trial Court so that he does not leave the country. If the Applicant wants to leave the country, he can do so with the permission of the concerned Trial Court."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-hc-bail-condition-306687.pdf

Also Read: HC seeks RML Hospital's response on plea alleging lack of medical facilities