Karnataka HC refuses to quash FIR against hospital, doctor over infant's finger amputation
New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash an FIR against the management of a hospital and its doctor for the accidental amputation of a 6-month-old infant's finger before discharge.
Denying relief, the HC bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed that the four-hour period in which the infant was kept in the emergency ward after the incident required investigation.
"Prima facie, there is no dispute that the baby was admitted in a hospital for some ailment and she was being treated in the hospital and allegedly the nurse was removing the drip administered to the baby as the doctor had advised for discharge of the baby. However, it appears that while removing the drip administered to the baby, the little finger of the baby is chopped off and the baby was kept in emergency ward for four hours," observed the HC bench.
"What exactly transpired in those four hours is the matter which requires to be investigated. If there is negligence on the part of the doctor in not taking care of the child, necessary precautions and following the necessary medical protocol, then, probably it may be case of negligence. In case, the doctors have taken necessary precautions and followed the prescribed medical protocol in such situation, then it may not be case of negligence. This is exactly the matter which requires investigation when it comes to the complaint against the doctor…" the bench further noted.
Observing that there must be an objective investigation into the said matter, the Court noted, "The Police Officer shall also take assistance of the expert on the subject to consider as to whether it was a case of negligence or not and thereafter, shall file appropriate report."
These observations were made by the Court while considering a plea seeking to quash the FIR and complaint registered against the petitioners at Indiranagar Police Station.
Also Read: Family alleges negligence after patient undergoes two arm amputations at Lucknow Hospital
The hospital and the doctor were booked for offences punishable under Section 125(b) [rash or negligent act that endangers human life or personal safety] BNS.
According to a Live Law report, it was argued by the petitioner-Doctor and the management of the hospital that the registration of the FIR amounted to an abuse of the process. The hospital submitted that the infant had been admitted for an ailment and was administered a drip for the same. Later, the nurse had removed the drip. However, while doing so, the nurse 'accidentally did something which resulted in amputation of little finger of the baby'.
Further, they submitted that the allegation was not made against the specific doctor in the complaint as the concerned doctor was admittedly not present at the time of occurrence of the incident. The counsel further submitted that the doctor, being a paediatrician, was not competent to carry out surgery in respect of an amputated finer even if he were available.
The hospital and the doctor further submitted that the required surgeon had been later secured for conducting the surgery. Referring to this, the counsel contended that no allegation of negligence could be sustained against the doctor.
Pointing out that the complainants had claimed that the nurse in the petitioner-hospital could be attributed for the amputation of the little finger, the management submitted that it had held an enquiry against the concerned nurse, who was later suspended. Further, it was submitted on the behalf of doctor and hospital that the enquiry in the matter was ongoing.
On the other hand, the respondents pointed out that the nurse had already brought the matter to the notice of the doctor on duty. They claimed that even after this, the surgery was not performed for four hours. They submitted that during this 4-hour period, the infant was kept under observation without any further treatment except the provision of first aid.
The complainants argued that the inaction on the part of the treating doctor on duty pertained to not securing the presence of the surgeon. They further argued that the doctor also did not recommend the baby for higher treatment or surgery at a better hospital and this amounted to negligence.
Taking note of these submissions, the HC bench observed that after the little finger of the baby was chopped off, the baby was kept in the emergency for four hours and what happened in those four hours required to be investigated. The Court observed that there must be an objective investigation into the said matter and asked the Police Officer to take assistance of the expert on the subject to consider whether it was a case of negligence or not. Accordingly, the bench disposed of the plea.
