HC quashes criminal proceedings against doctors, says independent expert medical opinion required before prosecution
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Chandigarh: Observing that the investigation officer should obtain an independent and competent medical opinion before prosecuting a doctor accused of medical negligence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against doctors.
While pronouncing the verdict in the matter, the HC bench comprising Justice Manisha Batra observed, "The investigating officer and the private complainant could not always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A of IPC."
Therefore, referring to the Supreme Court's guidelines for governing the prosecution of doctors for criminal rashness or criminal negligence, the HC bench observed,
"The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion."
Filing a complaint, the deceased patient's husband alleged that his wife was admitted to the treating nursing home on the night of 01.01.2015 after she developed labour pains. It was alleged that even though the doctors had initially assured to conduct a normal delivery, later a surgery was conducted and the deceased gave birth to twin daughters.
He complained that after the delivery, the woman suffered excessive bleeding, her condition deteriorated, and she was shifted to another hospital where doctors allegedly informed that the surgery had not been properly performed. Ultimately, the patient died on 05.01.2015 and a complaint alleging medical negligence of the doctors was filed.
Based on the preliminary evidence, the Magistrate summoned the doctors to face trial for offences under Section 304-A read with Section 34 IPC. Challenging this summoning order, the doctors approached the HC bench and argued that there was no medical evidence suggesting negligence on their part.
Dr. Singh, a senior doctor who supervised the treatment at another hospital, clarified that there was no medical negligence and that the patient suffered from postpartum hemorrhage and disseminated intravascular coagulation.
Meanwhile, based on the Court's order, a medical board was constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Tarn Taran, and the panel conducted an inquiry and opined that there was no lapse or negligence by the doctors. Meanwhile, the complaint filed before the Consumer Forum was also dismissed.
Referring to the Supreme Court order in the case of Jacob Matthew v. State of Punjab, Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, it was argued by the petitioner doctors that criminal prosecution against doctors cannot be permitted unless supported by a credible, independent medical opinion establishing gross negligence.
While considering the matter, the HC bench also reiterated the Supreme Court's guidelines issued in the case of Jacob Mathew, and the court emphasised that Criminal negligence required a much higher degree of negligence, amounting to gross or reckless conduct.
The HC bench reiterated the Supreme Court's observations that a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
After perusing the summoning order, the Court noted that the Magistrate, while issuing process against the petitioners, had relied upon the statements of the complainant, his brother-in-law and Dr Singh.
It also noted that the victim had admittedly died after her delivery and during the course of her treatment, she had suffered from postpartum haemorrhage just after delivering twin daughters.
"The complainant had filed a complaint before the police. As per the directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned civil writ petition, filed by the respondent, an inquiry was conducted by a team of two doctors by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, who filed a report that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners," observed the HC bench.
Noting that no medical evidence was produced to establish medical negligence, the HC bench further observed, "No finding has been recorded that the medical evidence produced on record pointed out that it was a case of negligence on the part of the petitioners that resulted into death of the victim. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, is not proved to have properly appreciated the evidence produced on record, especially the medical evidence in the form of testimony of CW-3, which did not attribute any negligence to the petitioners. Rather, the testimony of CW-3 shows that the petitioners had not committed any negligence while treating the victim."
"The learned Magistrate even did not refer the complaint to some board of doctors to obtain any independent and competent medical opinion and did not adopt the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jabob Mathew’s case and Martin’s case (supra). Even otherwise, the police authorities had got the matter inquired into by constituting a team of two doctors, who opined that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners. The evidence produced on record before the jurisdictional Magistrate cannot be stated to be prima facie sufficient to support the allegations of medical negligence and rashness on the part of the petitioners," it held.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the summoning order and the complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate and ordered, "As such, in view the discussion as made above, this Court finds merit in the petition. The same is accordingly allowed and the impugned complaint, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti and the summoning order dated 23.03.2018 passed therein are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom qua the petitioners herein."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-321539.pdf
