Patient dies during childbirth, HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings against gynaecologist
Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad: Denying to grant relief to a gynaecologist booked for culpable homicide not amounting to murder- IPC 304, the Gujarat High Court recently refused to entertain his plea seeking quashing of the proceedings.
The gynaecologist, along with others, was booked after a woman died during childbirth at a Bavla-based hospital back in May 2024. In this connection, Bavla police registered an FIR on September 2.
Police booked the doctor after the deceased's brother filed a complaint and alleged that due to the incompetence and negligence of doctors and staff at the treating Hospital, his sister died during childbirth in May 2024.
Also Read: NO Bail to Ahmedabad Cardiologist jailed for unindicated cardiology procedures
As per the latest media report by the Times of India, the complaint stated that the hospital doctor was guiding two nurses over the phone when the patient was admitted for delivery. When complications arose, the treating gynaecologist and anaesthetist were called to conduct a C-section. It was alleged that the child was stillborn, and due to profuse bleeding, the patient was shifted to Sola Civil Hospital without a referral. The patient was declared dead on arrival at the second hospital.
After the patient's brother filed the complaint, an FIR was registered by the police based on the complainant's statement and an opinion report from Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. The FIR named three doctors and two nurses, who were booked under IPC sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 114 (abetment).
Challenging the FIR, the gynaecologist approached the Gujarat High Court bench. His counsel contended that doctors are usually charged under IPC section 304A (causing death by negligence). Therefore, the counsel questioned the use of section 304, which carries harsher punishment, for the doctor. He also urged the court to consider an alternative expert opinion.
However, the HC bench comprising Justice Desai declined to do so at this stage and further refused to entertain the plea. Following Justice Desai's refusal, the doctor's counsel withdrew the petition and sought anticipatory bail instead.
At this outset, the bench observed, "Permission as prayed for is granted. The present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case."
