Preliminary Inquiry About Alleged Negligence is a Must in a Case of Medical Negligence: High Court
Image Source: Daily Excelsior
The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed legal actions against a doctor who was charged under Section 304A, ruling that a preliminary investigation into the alleged negligence is required in cases of medical negligence, and that a private complaint cannot be considered unless the complainant has presented prima facie evidence to the court in the form of a credible statement made by another qualified doctor to substantiate the charge of haste or negligence and vicarious liability.
Brief Facts
The respondent filed a lawsuit against the petitioner under Section 304A, claiming that the treating physician was negligent in his wife’s care and that they killed her on purpose, making them accountable under Section 304A of the IPC. The petitioner filed the current petition to have the entire criminal case against him dismissed.
Contentions of the applicant
The deceased had a known case of filarial left limb, hypertension, and obesity for the last eight years, and she was receiving treatment for these conditions. As part of a routine check-up, a blood investigation was conducted, and the patient was being treated by the said Unit with a team of doctors overseeing the patient’s care, the learned counsel arguing on behalf of the petitioner claimed.
It was argued that the petitioner was the only one against whom the court had jurisdiction, even though the hospital in question had four named doctors, and that the petitioner’s role as the unit in charge of the hospital was not mentioned in either the solemn affirmation or the complaint petition. Further, it was argued that the Indian Penal Code’s penal provisions do not recognize the idea of vicarious liability. As a result, even though it was assumed—though expressly denied—that the treating doctors had been negligent in some way, the petitioner could not be held solely responsible for criminal prosecution, and the entire criminal case should be dismissed.
Contentions of the respondent
The knowledgeable attorney who appeared on behalf of the respondent argued that because the trial was ongoing and the court was not authorized to interfere with the entirety of the criminal proceedings, the case against the doctor had been established in light of the CMO’s assessment, and the court had therefore properly taken the petitioner’s case under consideration because it satisfied the requirements of Section 304A of the IPC.
Observations of the court
The court noted that the solemn affirmation and complaint petition did not specifically accuse the petitioner of any wrongdoing and that the CMO’s opinion that the sudden death of a clinically stable patient raises questions about improper management leaves room for doubt as to the petitioner’s involvement in the report as a whole. The court ruled that the District Consumer Forum in Bokaro had taken the CMO’s opinion into account and correctly determined that the expert opinion presented to it lacked specificity and had not been backed by any accepted medical guidelines.
Using the instances of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, for example, the court stressed the significance of preliminary investigations in medical negligence claims. Additionally, it was made clear that private complaints cannot be considered without first-degree proof from a different medical professional and that vicarious liability cannot be used because there is no direct claim against the petitioner.
The court further declared that a surgeon who knows that a specific procedure is likely to result in the death of a patient who is suffering from a painful complaint, but who does not intend to cause the patient’s death and who intends in good faith to operate on the patient with the patient’s consent, has not violated any laws.
Decision of the court
The court granted the petition, using its authority under Article 226, and overturned the petitioner’s whole criminal case.
Team Profile
Latest entries
Article30 September 2023Can RPF Personnel Be Treated As ‘Workman’ For Compensation Purposes? SC Decides
English30 September 2023High Court Expounds: The Statement of an Eyewitness Must Be Free from Blemish and Devoid of Any Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Loopholes
News29 September 2023Radhasoami Satsang Bhawan: The High Court Directs to Maintain the Status Quo On Land in Agra until Oct 5- News28 September 2023Denying Child’s Affection to Other Spouse Cruelty: High Court
