Some doctors disregard human life, maligning noble profession: HC refuses to quash FIR under IPC 304A against Specialist

The bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy, however, asked the court to "expedite the trial and dispose of the case within a period of six months of receipt of the copy of the order" in consideration of the fact that the case was old and had been pending for 14 years.

The court was deliberating an application filed by the doctor seeking to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against him that were pending before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar.

The petitioner doctor was attached to Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Hospital as a Medicine Specialist. On July 1, 2009, the patient Madhusmita Sahoo was admitted to the Medicine Ward of BMC Hospital and was under the treatment of the petitioner doctor.

Due to the patient's low haemoglobin levels and deteriorating health, the patient's uncle pleaded with both the petitioner and the BMC Hospital's staff to urgently provide her with a blood transfusion for her treatment. Despite their assurances to administer the necessary blood, they failed to follow through.

The doctor was not present and though other doctors tried to contact him over phone, he did not respond. Subsequently, the patient passed away during the night, with allegations pointing toward the petitioner's negligence as a contributing factor to her demise.

Aggrieved, the uncle of the deceased, Sanjay Kumar Sahoo, initiated legal action and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Lingaraj police station in Bhubaneswar on July 2, 2009 against the doctor under IPC 304A.

In the petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and the charge sheet filed against him, the petitioner asserted that there exists no substantial evidence implicating him in forming a preliminary case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The argument put forth was that the petitioner had advised the deceased's family to carry out an Ultra Sonography (USG) of the abdomen and pelvis. This diagnostic procedure would have enabled a clear diagnosis and subsequent appropriate treatment. However, due to the failure to pursue this recommendation, the petitioner contended that the responsibility for the patient's demise rests with the family members rather than with him.

Conversely, the counsel for the state government contended that, despite numerous appeals and phone calls made by the female doctor, the petitioner declined to personally attend to the patient. Instead, he advised transferring the patient to a private nursing home. This course of action, as argued, directly contravened the petitioner's responsibility to the public and constituted a severe lapse in duty, amounting to gross negligence.

After hearing the contentions and taking into account the facts of the case, the court invoked the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi and another (2004), where it was held that noted if the degree of negligence committed by a doctor is so gross and his act was so reckless as to endanger the life of the patient, he can be made criminally liable for the offence U/S. 304-A of IPC.

Additionally, the Court made reference to another prominent Supreme Court case, Jacob Mathew vs. State Of Punjab & Anr (2005). It also took note of the charge sheet. Furthermore, it factored into account the medical board's adverse and negative opinion against the doctor in the matter.

Expressing concern, the court said;

"It is true that no sensible professional, more particularly a Doctor would intentionally commit an act or omit to do an act which would result in loss of life. A medical practitioner faced with an emergency situation would definitely try his level best to treat the patient and ordinarily could not leave his patient to die. The position of Doctor in India as accepted by public generally is next to God, but there are certain instances/aberration of course a few in number, the medical practitioners are acting in utter disregard to human life in expectation of pecuniary advantage to malign in the noble profession. A Doctor is always expected to treat or provide assistance to the patient to the best of his knowledge and ability without any material expectation which is why renders such profession as noble and they are considered as emissary of God in our country."

Consequently, finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, the Court dismissed his plea, and noted;

"Reverting back to the case at hand, it is of course true whether the deceased died on account of gross negligence of the Petitioner is a question of fact which can be answered in the trial after evidence is led, but the materials so collected by the Investigating Agency when tested on the touch stone of the parameters as laid down in Jacob Mathew(supra), there appears some prima facie case against the Petitioner vindicating a trial in this case. On a cumulative assessment and discussion of facts and law as indicated above, it appears to the Court that the Petitioner has not made out a case to show that the criminal proceeding instituted against him in the aforesaid case is an abuse of process of Court and, thereby, is required to be quashed. Hence, it is ordered."

However, the court directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within a period of six months. It noted;

"Since the criminal case in G.R. Case No. 1655 of 2009 is an year old case and 14 years has already been elapsed, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within a period of six months of receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court forthwith."

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