'Pvt Hospitals Treat Patients As ATMs To Extract Money': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Doctor Accused Of Medical Negligence

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar noted that the applicant (Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai) had failed to justify the 4-5 hour delay between obtaining consent for surgery and conducting the operation, which allegedly led to the death of the child.

"…any medical professional, who carries out his profession with due diligence and caution, has to be protected but certainly not those doctors who have opened nursing home without proper facilities, doctors and infrastructure and enticing the patients just to extract money out of them", the Court said in its strongly-worded order.

The case in brief

In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged on July 29, 2007, wherein it was alleged that the pregnant wife of the informant's younger brother was admitted to the Nursing Home run by the applicant.

It was alleged that the patient's family gave consent for caesarean surgery at around 11 AM on July 29, 2007, but the surgery was performed only at 5:30 PM, by which time the foetus had died.

Thereafter, when objection was raised by the family members of the patient, they were allegedly beaten up by the employees of the doctor (applicant) and his associates.

The FIR also alleged that the applicant charged ₹8,700 and demanded an additional ₹10,000 while also refusing to issue a discharge slip.

Arguments advanced

Challenging summons as well as the entire criminal proceedings under Section 304A, 315, 323 and 506 IPC, the applicant moved the HC arguing that he had the requisite medical qualification for the treatment of the patient.

It was also contended that, as per the report submitted by the Medical Board, no such medical negligence had been proved against the applicant in providing treatment to the alleged victim.

Opposing the quashing plea, counsel for the complainant argued that the patient was in a stable condition at the time of admission, yet the surgery was delayed as the applicant lacked an anaesthetist in his nursing home.

It was also submitted that the Medical Board's clean chit was unreliable as crucial documents, including the post-mortem report attributing the foetus' death to 'prolonged labour' and a contradictory OT note, were not placed before it.

Similar arguments were also made by the Additional Government Advocate, who submitted that the foetus died only because of the delay in carrying out the surgery in time by the applicant.

High Court's order

At the outset, the High Court rejected reliance on the Board's findings as it noted that several crucial documents, such as the post-mortem report and a second operation theatre note, were not placed before it.

It was noted that the anaesthetist was called at around 3:30 PM, which indicated that there was a lack of preparedness and facilities. Finding this delay to be crucial, the single judge observed thus:

"This is a case of pure misadventure where the doctor has admitted the patient and after taking go ahead for operation from the patient's family members, did not perform the operation in time as he was not having the requisite doctor (i.e. anaesthetist ) to perform the surgery".

Regarding the protection to be granted to the doctors in cases of medical negligence, the bench referred to top court judgments in the cases of Dr. Suresh Gupta vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and another 2004 and Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr 2005 to note that this protection can only be applied if the medical professional has carried out its duty skilfully, as any other doctor would have done in the given circumstances.

The bench noted that criminal liability occurs if ordinary care is not taken by a doctor while treating the patient.

Against this backdrop, the court referred to the facts of the case to note that it was a 'classic' case where operation was delayed for 4-5 hours without any reason, coupled with the fact that the post-mortem report showed that the foetus died because of the prolonged labour.

This fact, the Court added, clearly showed the malafide intention of the doctor/applicant in cheating the patient.

Furthermore, in a broader commentary on the state of private healthcare, the Court acknowledged the need to protect medical professionals from frivolous litigation, but added:

"No doubt, yes the medical practitioner had to be saved from the clutches of medical negligence otherwise that would cause trembling and dangling fear among doctors of commencing criminal prosecution of any failure in any operation/surgery. This is the fact that any medical professional, who carries out his profession with due diligence and caution, has to be protected...This protection can only be applied if the medical professional has carried out its duty skilfully, as any other doctor would have done in the given circumstances".

Regarding the facts of the case, the Court added that the time of admission of the patient and the time of surgery, and the time of taking the consent from the family member of the patient are three crucial aspects in this case which have to be seen after adducing evidence.

Against this backdrop, finding no ground to interfere under Section 482 CrPC, the Court dismissed the plea.