Background
A police sub-inspector lodged report informing that a complainant alleged that his wife was treated by applicant, who runs Samarth Clinic in a village named Vivare, and his wife was under applicant’s medical supervision during from 13-05-2021 to 16-05-2021. As the health of complainant’s wife deteriorated, she was referred to Dr. Sunil Choudhari in Gajanan Hospital, Savada and on Dr. Sunil’s advice, complainant’s wife was admitted to Dr. Rajesh Dabi’s Hospital, Jalgaon. Since there was no improvement in her health condition, she was further referred to Om Clinic Hospital, Jalgaon. Thereafter, she was brought back to Gajanan Hospital. However, on 31-05-2021, complainant’s wife lost her life. The complainant alleged that because of the wrong treatment and overdose of medicine during preliminary treatment by applicant, his wife lost her life.
The Committee constituted at Medical College submitted its report to the police station stating that applicant had prescribed irrational combination of medicines and applicant being qualified in Ayurvedic medicine, was not competent to prescribe modern medicines. It was alleged that applicant treated complainant’s wife in negligent manner by prescribing modern medicines with irrational combination, hence, was responsible for her death. Thus, a case was registered against applicant for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that complainant’s wife was treated by applicant from 13-05-2021 to 16-05-2021 and as she had weakness in her right hand, applicant prescribed certain medicines and advanced preliminary treatment. The medicines were injected through Intravenous (IV), and blood samples were collected and based on Pathology Laboratory’s report, further medicines were prescribed suspecting her to be a patient of Typhoid.
The Court further noted that since there was no improvement in health condition of complainant’s wife, Dr. M. M. Deshmukh was consulted and he noticed that her condition was critical, thus, she was admitted to hospital of Dr. Sunil Choudhari, where he expressed possibility of paralytic attack and referred complainant’s wife to Dr. Rajesh Dabi’s Hospital, Jalgaon. On 18-05-2021, in a CT scan report, blockage of blood supply to the brain was noticed and surgery was conducted by Dr. Swapnil Patil at Om Critical Hospital. After 21-05-2021, she was brought back to Dr. Rajesh Dabi’s Hospital, where some improvement in her health was noticed. However, after two days her health deteriorated again and brain hemorrhage was noticed, thus, a second surgery was conducted to control the hemorrhage, but there was no improvement. On 31-05-2021, the doctor advised to stop medical treatment, for want of response and on 01-06-2021, complainant’s wife lost her life.
The Court observed that applicant’s role was limited to the extent of medical treatment advanced to complainant’s wife from 13-05-2021 to 16-05-2021 and from 16-05-2021 till 31-05-2021, she was treated by three doctors for brain hemorrhage, which appeared to be ultimate cause of her death.
The Court stated that the report submitted by the Committee nowhere suggested that prescription of irrational combination of medicines by applicant was responsible for brain hemorrhage and consequential death of complainant’s wife. Thus, the issue for consideration before this Court was “whether prosecution of applicant for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC could be sustained?”.
The Court opined that Section 304-A of IPC requires two ingredients to make out offence, firstly, there must be rash and negligent act on the part of the accused and secondly, such rash and negligent act must be the cause of death. The Court stated that mere negligence would not constitute any offence unless such negligent act on accused’s part was found to be proximate cause for death.
The Court after referring to the FIR and charge-sheet, opined that there was no proximity between death of complainant’s wife and medical treatment advanced by applicant. The Court stated that the Committee’s report mentioned that combination of medicines prescribed by applicant was irrational, however, consequence of such irrational combination of medicines was not specified. Thus, based on the report, it could not be concluded that brain hemorrhage, which appeared to be ultimate reason of death of complainant’s wife was directly the result of irrational combination of medicines administered to her. Further, in absence of postmortem report, when complainant’s wife was treated at different hospitals for about two weeks before her death, the definite conclusion regarding cause of death could not be drawn.
The Court relied on Suresh Gupta (Dr.) v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2004) 6 SCC 422, wherein it was observed that for fixing criminal liability on a doctor/surgeon, the standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as could be described as “gross Negligence” or “recklessness”. It was not merely lack of necessary care, attention, and skill and the doctor could not be held criminally responsible for patient’s death unless his negligence or incompetence showed such disregard for life and safety of his patient as to amount to a crime against the State. The Court also relied on Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221, wherein it was observed that the charge of professional negligence on a medical person was a serious one as it affects his professional status and reputation and as such the burden of proof would be more onerous. A doctor could not be held negligent only because something had gone wrong, and he could not be held liable for mischance/misadventure or for an error of judgment in making a choice when two options were available. The mistake in diagnosis was not necessarily a negligent diagnosis.
The Court further relied on Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 162 and opined that in absence of the material indicating direct nexus between the cause of death and medical treatment advanced by applicant, no case could be made out to prosecute him for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The Court opined that it might be possible that owing to negligence attributed against applicant to complainant’s wife, some case for actionable negligence in civil law was made out, however, in absence of proximity between cause of death and negligent act which was sine qua non for prosecution against medical practitioner, criminal prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC could not be sustained.
The Court relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court had emphasized on need to guard the proceedings that were initiated against medical practitioners and thus, this Court opined that medical practitioners were required to be protected from frivolous and unjust prosecution, particularly when it was used for pressurizing them to extract unjust compensation.
Thus, the Court allowed and disposed of the application.
[Prashant Sopan Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3034, decided on 10-09-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: V. B. Patil, J. V. Patil, Advocates
For the Respondent: A.M. Phule, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Section 528 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Section 106(1) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023