The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai, a gynecologist from Deoria, seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him in a case of alleged medical negligence that led to the death of a foetus. The court upheld the summoning order issued by a lower court, observing that prima facie evidence suggested negligence due to delayed surgery despite consent being given by the patient’s family.
The case dates back to July 2007 when the wife of the complainant’s younger brother was admitted to Dr. Rai’s Savitri Nursing Home for delivery. According to the FIR, the doctor advised a caesarean section and obtained consent around 11 AM on July 29, 2007. However, the surgery was allegedly delayed until 5:30 PM due to the unavailability of an anaesthetist. By the time the operation was conducted, the foetus was declared dead. The post-mortem report later confirmed that the death was caused by “prolonged labour.”
The complainant accused Dr. Rai of medical negligence, claiming that the delay in performing the surgery led to the foetus’s death. Additionally, the family alleged that they were forced to pay ₹8,700 for the procedure and were pressured to deposit another ₹10,000. When they protested, they were allegedly assaulted by the nursing home staff. An FIR was lodged under Sections 304A (causing death by negligence), 315 (act done with intent to prevent child being born alive), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
During the investigation, the police referred the matter to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), who formed a medical board to examine the allegations. The board initially gave a clean chit to Dr. Rai, stating that no negligence was found in the treatment provided. However, the court noted that the medical board’s opinion was based solely on the doctor’s statement and did not consider critical evidence, including the post-mortem report and contradictory operation theatre (OT) notes.
The complainant filed a protest petition, challenging the medical board’s findings. The magistrate, after reviewing the case diary and evidence, rejected the final report and issued summons to Dr. Rai, observing that there was enough material to proceed with the trial.
Dr. Rai approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that the medical board had absolved him of negligence and that the prosecution was malicious. His counsel cited Supreme Court judgments, including Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Dr. Suresh Gupta vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which state that criminal liability in medical negligence cases requires “gross negligence” and not mere errors of judgment.
However, the High Court found discrepancies in the doctor’s statements, including conflicting timelines of the patient’s admission and surgery. The court also noted that the post-mortem report, which attributed the foetus’s death to prolonged labour, was not placed before the medical board. Additionally, the existence of two different OT notes raised suspicions of fabrication.
Justice Prashant Kumar, while dismissing the plea, emphasized that the case involved disputed facts that could only be resolved during trial. The court acknowledged the need to protect doctors from frivolous prosecutions but clarified that this protection does not extend to cases where negligence is evident. The judge observed that the delay in conducting the surgery, despite consent, and the absence of an anaesthetist indicated a lack of due care.
The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, which held that consumer forums and criminal courts can proceed independently in medical negligence cases. It noted that while the victim’s family had also filed a consumer complaint in 2009, the pendency of that case did not bar criminal proceedings.
The High Court concluded that the magistrate was justified in summoning Dr. Rai, as there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial. However, it clarified that the observations in this order would not influence the trial court’s independent assessment of evidence.
This ruling reinforces the legal principle that while doctors should not be harassed for genuine medical complications, they cannot evade accountability in cases of demonstrable negligence. The case will now proceed in the trial court, where both sides will have the opportunity to present their evidence in detail.
The judgment serves as a cautionary note for medical professionals, particularly those running private nursing homes, to ensure that they have adequate infrastructure and staff to handle emergencies without delay. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing the protection of doctors with the rights of patients to seek justice for medical malpractice.
Reach us at mystory@aawaazuthao.com