HC Relief: Medical Negligence Case Against Oncologist Quashed
Telangana High Court
Hyderabad: Granting relief to an oncologist, who was accused in a medical negligence case, the Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice EV Venugopal quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the doctor.
The HC bench dismissed the proceedings against the doctor after perusing the medical record, which reflected that the oncologist Dr. Reddy, had only suggested some tests to determine the patient's condition.
The history of the case goes back to 2009 when the complainant's mother received treatment from the accused doctor. A complaint was filed on April 29, 2013, alleging medical negligence resulting in the patient's death on November 12, 2009. The complaint was filed under Section 200 of the CrPC.
Based on the complaint, a chargesheet was filed against the accused doctor under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) of the IPC. Consequently, the doctor approached the trial court seeking discharge, and he argued that no prima facie case was made out against him.
He also contended that there was an inordinate delay in filling the complaint, argued that the charges lacked the requisite legal ingredients and that the allegations did not disclose any role of deficiency in service attributable to him.
Also Read: Vasectomy failure not medical negligence! HC sets aside compensation order
As per the latest media report by The New Indian Express, the counsel for the oncologist asserted that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the continuation of proceedings amounted to an abuse of legal process.
When his discharge petition was dismissed by the III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the doctor filed a criminal petition before the Telangana High Court challenging the same.
However, the Assistant Public Prosecutor maintained that since the trial court had already taken cognisance of the offences and the chargesheet disclosed a prima facie case, the revision petition did not merit any interference by the High Court.
After hearing both parties, Justice Venugopal observed that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any causal link between Dr Reddy's medical advice and the patient's death, ruling out the applicability of Section 304-A IPC, which deals with death caused by rash or negligent acts.
The Court further noted that there was no evidence of conspiracy to warrant charges under Section 120(B) of IPC.
Accordingly, the Court observed in the order, "The entire record shows that the petitioner has only suggested some tests to be done for determination of the disease. From an overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances, none of the ingredients of the alleged sections of law warrant taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner."
The Times of India has reported that, referring to the grievance of the woman's family, the Court observed that after the family approached the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad, the Commission directed the doctor to compensate the woman's family, and hence the family's grievance was also addressed.
Observing that the proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were not conducted following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the HC bench remarked that civil cases are decided based on the preponderance of evidence, while in criminal cases, the entire burden lies on the protection, and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given.
The Court also observed that since the proceedings of the Commission could not be equated with those of the proceedings before the Civil Court, the Commission's findings would not have any bearing or applicability to the present case. Accordingly, the HC bench set aside the trial court's order and discharged the doctor in the criminal case.
