No Bail to Acupressure Practitioner for treating gangrene without qualification resulting in amputation
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied the plea for anticipatory bail for an acupressure practitioner, whose alleged negligent treatment resulted in the amputation of left leg of the patient.Denying the plea for bail, the HC bench comprising of Justice Sandip Moudgil noted that the petitioner-accused was not competent to provide treatment to the patient. "In...
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied the plea for anticipatory bail for an acupressure practitioner, whose alleged negligent treatment resulted in the amputation of left leg of the patient.
Denying the plea for bail, the HC bench comprising of Justice Sandip Moudgil noted that the petitioner-accused was not competent to provide treatment to the patient.
"In the present case treatment has been given by the petitioner accused for a disease, which was beyond her knowledge and qualification, for which she was not authorised and none of her educational qualifications brought to the notice of this Court are recognized by the competent authorities like Medical Council of India or any State Medical Board to advance the practising in alternate medicine for the ailment of gangrene," observed the bench.
Apart from this, the bench also noted that the petitioner failed to serve the patient with reasonable degree of care and skill and noted, "This Court is sanguine of the fact that the petitioner-accused, even according to her possessed qualification for acupressure and ElectroHomeopathy Medical System, has a duty to act with a reasonable degree of care and skill has an implied undertaking of not to give a chance for breach of such duty, has given a cause of action for negligence which resulted into huge damage to the father of the complainant, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever."
The concerned acupressure practitioner was providing treatment to the father of the complainant who was suffering from gangrene on the thumb and three fingers of left foot. Besides, the patient had diabetes and he was a heart patient as well. It has been alleged that the accused had used a board outside her clinic that read Dr. Mamta Kapoor. She also assured the complainant of curing the disease.
Consequently, the father of the complainant was treated from 28.01.2022 till 06.02.2022. At the time of discharge from the clinic, the petitioner-accused did not give any document but promised to give the complete summary of treatment and discharge, later on. Following this, she made home visits till 13.02.2022 at the house of the complainant's sister and charged an amount of Rs 1 lakh in total for the complete treatment.
However, the father of the complainant started having acute pain in the left foot and got him examined in Gupta Hospital, Siddharth Nursing Home, Amritsar. It was diagnosed that the gangrene had infected the entire left leg, which had to be amputated failing which it would endanger his life. The reasons for such severe infection was the wrong and negligent medical treatment given by the petitioner-accused.
Consequently, the complainant came to know about other persons whose life had been put at risk by the petitioner-accused and for these the accused is already facing complaints. It has been alleged that the accused acupressure practitioner was practising as a 'doctor' without having any valid licence.
After being booked under Sections 338, 406, 420 IPC and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, the petitioner-accused filed the plea under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
The counsel for the petitioner-accused claimed that the accused has due qualification to provide Electro Homeopathy/Acupressure treatment and to prove the same, the counsel submitted the Result-cum-Detailed Mark Certificate issued by the Council of Electro-Homeopathy System of Medicine (Punjab), apart from a certificate of M.D.Acu. issued by Acupressure Research, Training & Treatment Institute, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
Apart from this, the counsel further submitted that the petitioner-accused has completed Complimentary Medicine (Medicine Alternative) through correspondence course from an institute registered by the Punjab Govt. under S.R. Act & Govt. of India under T.M. Act, 1999 along-with a Diploma in Community Medical Services & Essential Drugs (CC) granted by the Para Medical Council (Punjab).
It was further stated by the petitioner's counsel that she has been registered as Community Health Worker with the Para Medical Council, Punjab and she is duly equipped with the course of Diploma in Acupuncture. The Counsel for the petitioner denied the fact that she runs a clinic displaying Doctor before her name Mamta Kapoor, who is running a similar clinic in single storey dwelling unit consisting of three rooms as a small time alternative medicine therapist.
The petitioner further submitted that neither there was any indoor admission arrangement in the clinic nor any such facility to admit the father of the complainant. Therefore, FIR, in question, is absolutely false and having no iota of truth in it.
On the other hand, the Deputy Advocate General of Haryana vehemently opposed the plea seeking anticipatory bail and contended that the petitioner-accused had a degree of BEMS (Master Degree Certificate in Acupressure) and she is not qualified for treating the patient suffering from disease like gangreme,
Moreover, he submitted that the petitioner-accused was duly made aware of the other medical issues like diabetes and heart ailments of the father of the complainant, still she chose to give false assurance of curing the disease. As a result of medical negligence, the father of the complainant lost left leg which had been amputated below the knee.
At this outset, reference was made to an inquiry conducted by the Medical Board, consisting Dr. Sham Lal, SMO, Civil Hospital, Panipat, Dr. Pardeep, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Panipat, Dr. Ravinder Garg, IMA, Representative Panipat, Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, NIMA, Representative Panipat and Civil Surgeon, Panipat, which opined that the petitioner-accused was not a recognized medical practitioner and the treatment of already established disease of gangrene was beyond of her acumen and knowledge of medical science. In fact, the Committee had further concluded it to be a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner-accused due to which the left leg of the father of the complainant had to be amputated.
The counsel for the State further submitted that prima-facie offences under Sections 338, 406 and 420 IPC and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are found to be made out against the petitioner-accused. He also pointed out that until now, the petitioner-accused could not be traced and the investigation in the FIR cannot be conducted until or unless the petitioner-accused is not taken into custody for interrogation.
After considering the submissions made by both the parties, the bench observed that the accused had provided treatment for a disease that was beyond her knowledge. The Court noted,
"In the present case treatment has been given by the petitioner accused for a disease, which was beyond her knowledge and qualification, for which she was not authorised and none of her educational qualifications brought to the notice of this Court are recognized by the competent authorities like Medical Council of India or any State Medical Board to advance the practising in alternate medicine for the ailment of gangrene. It is evident from the record and also not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner-accused that the disease was initially in the thumb and fingers of the left foot only."
Further holding the petitioner guilty of not acting in accordance with a reasonable degree of care and skill, the bench observed,
"This Court is sanguine of the fact that the petitioner-accused, even according to her possessed qualification for acupressure and ElectroHomeopathy Medical System, has a duty to act with a reasonable degree of care and skill has an implied undertaking of not to give a chance for breach of such duty, has given a cause of action for negligence which resulted into huge damage to the father of the complainant, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever."
"Such loss will not only disable a person from routine course of his life but will also keep on pricking in his mind to cause consistent mental cruelty and harassment apart from embarrassment in daily routine in the society at large," it added.
Therefore, denying to provide anticipatory bail, the HC bench mentioned in the order, "In the light of the afore-said discussions and the facts on record, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and is fully convinced that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to move the investigation in the case."
To read the order, click on the link below.
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/ph-hc-181296.pdf
Also Read: GMCH Chandigarh revises Eligibility criteria for MBBS admissions
