Bombay HC discharges Hinduja Hospital managing trustee in 1992 ophthalmic drug case

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has discharged the managing trustee of PD Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre from criminal proceedings dating back to 1992 over the alleged use of substandard ophthalmic drugs that reportedly caused a patient to lose vision in the operated eye following cataract surgery.

The court observed that a person cannot be held criminally liable merely for occupying a senior position in a trust or hospital, without specific allegations establishing their responsibility for the alleged offence.

“A trustee or even a director of a company for that matter only by his position does not become per se liable or per se vicariously liable for any and every act,” the court observed, cautioning that accepting such a proposition would have far-reaching consequences, Hindustan Times reported.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the patient’s son with the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) in June 1992. He alleged that Visilon, an ophthalmic drug used during his father’s cataract surgery, caused a fungal infection in the operated eye, eventually resulting in blindness.

During a preliminary inquiry, the FDA reportedly found that the drug was not of standard quality and showed microbial growth during sterility testing. Criminal proceedings were subsequently initiated before a magistrate against the drug manufacturers, dealers and distributors, pharmacists, the hospital and its managing trustee under provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The trustee approached the High Court after a metropolitan magistrate court at Mazgaon rejected his discharge plea on September 3, 2015. A sessions court upheld that order on December 2, 2017. His counsel argued that he had been implicated based on information the hospital provided in response to queries raised by the FDA.

Opposing the plea, the government argued that the managing trustee was responsible for the trust’s activities and exercised overall control over the hospital’s day-to-day functioning.

The High Court rejected this argument, noting that the proceedings contained no specific allegations against the trustee beyond identifying him by his position. It held that a trustee’s civil obligations cannot automatically be equated with criminal liability and that merely holding such a position is insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings unless the law specifically provides for it, Hindustan Times reported.