Punjab and Haryana High Court denies Bail to quack accused of causing patient death by wrong treatment
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied bail to an unlicensed medical practitioner accused of causing the death of a man in 2022 due to improper treatment. The decision, delivered by Justice Namit Kumar, highlighted that the investigation revealed that the accused had been practicing medicine without the professional qualifications required by law.
According to the court, his actions extended beyond negligent medical treatment. After the victim, passed away, he allegedly attempted to destroy evidence by discarding the body near a paying guest accommodation in Gurugram's Manesar area.
The incident came to light when the uncle of the deceased reported that his wrongful treatment had led to his nephew's death. Since his nephew had died in suspicious circumstances, he made a request to the police to conduct the post-mortem. After the post-mortem, he saw CCTV footage at the paying guest facility which revealed that his nephew had a fever. He was getting himself treated by the accused doctor of Alam Clinic in the village of Aliyar.
On 26.09.2022 also his nephew had gone to the doctor and he alleged that his nephew had died due to the wrong treatment given, the accused along with his friend had kept the dead body on the road near the paying guest facility. It was also alleged that the accused does not have any professional degree and an FIR was lodged under the same charges.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the petitioner had just administered a Monosef Injection 500 mg to the deceased, which is an anti-biotic. He submitted that the deceased had died a natural death as per the post-mortem report dated 28.09.2022. He further stated that the cause of death in this case is ‘Asphyxia’ due to blockage of respiratory passages. He argued that the deceased seems to have died on account of food particles/vomit particles, which got struck in his throat/veins, which resulted in destructing the breathing passage of his body and he succumbed to death and no injury whatsoever has been found on the body of deceased.
The petitioner (accused in the case) submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had guilty intuition to commit the alleged offense, therefore, no motive is attributed to him, which is an essential ingredient of Section 304(ii) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). It was also contended that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 1 year and 9 months and that two of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case.
The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was practising as a doctor without holding any professional degree, as required by law and he had administered an injection to the deceased after which he succumbed to death. He further submitted that the petitioner along with the co-accused had thrown the dead body of the deceased on the road in front of the shop, in order to destroy the evidence, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
"It is to be seen by the trial court as to whether the petitioner was a registered medical practitioner or not and running his clinic or not, by way of evidence to be adduced before the trial Court. Concededly, a person has lost his life," the Court said after considering the submissions.
"Despite the existence of laws and regulations, many individuals practice medicine without proper qualifications or registration, putting patient's lives at risk and consequence thereof, misdiagnosis and improper treatment leading to worsening of patient conditions. They are a menace to public health in India", it added.
Stating that a person who committed an offence under section 304 Part-ll IPC, is liable to be awarded imprisonment for up to ten years and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner is only 1 year 9 months, and 29 days as of now, the bench has denied regular bail to the accused. The High Court’s refusal to grant bail underscores the severity of the charges against Faheem and raises broader concerns about the dangers posed by unqualified individuals practicing medicine without proper credentials.
To view the order, click on the link below:
