Court Relief: FIR against Senior LNJP doctor in medical negligence case stayed
The lawyer told the court that the doctor is a senior doctor in Lok Nayak Hospital for the last 16 years and various medical committees, including Delhi Medical Council (DMC), gave him a clean chit during that period.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has stayed the registration of FIR against a Lok Nayak Hospital doctor here in a case related to alleged medical negligence in the treatment of a kidney of a patient in 2005. Additional Sessions Judge Charu Aggarwal in an interim order stayed the decision of the magisterial court directing registration of FIR against the doctor for alleged medical...
New Delhi: A Delhi court has stayed the registration of FIR against a Lok Nayak Hospital doctor here in a case related to alleged medical negligence in the treatment of a kidney of a patient in 2005.
Additional Sessions Judge Charu Aggarwal in an interim order stayed the decision of the magisterial court directing registration of FIR against the doctor for alleged medical negligence.
The magistrate had passed the order on the complaint of Ravindra Nath Dubey alleging that the doctor, who was the Head of Paediatrics at the Lok Nayak Hospital at that time, conducted a nephrectomy on his son and removed his kidney without consent. Challenging the order, the doctor, through criminal lawyer Namit Saxena, argued that he took written consent from the complainant, and was also exonerated in five inquiries.
Also Read: Consumer Commission slams District Forum obnoxious order, grants relief to doctor, nurse
The lawyer told the court that the doctor is a senior doctor in Lok Nayak Hospital for the last 16 years and various medical committees, including Delhi Medical Council (DMC), gave him a clean chit during that period.
The Sessions Judge in the November 23 order said, "Keeping in mind the reports of different Medical Boards including of Delhi Medical Council, the impugned order is hereby stayed till further orders without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on merits of the case."
During the proceedings, Saxena argued that the doctor was falsely implicated and that the complainant was harassing him.
He also placed the reports of all committees by way of which clean chit was given to the doctor. The advocate argued that the trial court while passing the impugned order on the complaint filed in 2016 did not appreciate the reports of different Medical Boards which observed that there was no medical negligence.
Meanwhile, counsel for the complainant stated that the impugned order was passed after appreciating all the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, no ground for stay was made out.
The case will now be heard on November 30.
