Jharkhand High Court: In a petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) (corresponding Section 106 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ) against the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., opined that it was crystal clear that a private complaint might not be entertained unless the complainant had produced prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. Thus, the Court stated that allowing the proceedings to continue, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and accordingly, quashed the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC against the petitioner.
Background
In the present case, the complainant alleged that he was the younger son of the deceased, who died due to gross medical negligence committed by the accused persons while she was admitted in the Hospital. The complainant alleged that on the petitioner’s advice, the deceased was admitted in the Critical Care Unit (‘CCU’) as she was suffering from Urinary tract infection. Petitioner also told that since the deceased was suffering from high blood sugar, therefore administration of insulin was required. The Hospital provided the slip of medicine and complainant was required to purchase the same from the shop which was run by the Hospital. The complainant alleged that the hospital also collected some amount even after the deceased’s death, but the complainant or other witness were totally unaware about the reason of death.
The complainant alleged that he and the other witnesses were not medical expert, and the petitioners and other accused persons were not sharing anything with them except that the insulin was being administered in much quantity and thus it was gross failure on their part. Further, the method of telephonic prescription of medicines and drugs was adopted even to the patient kept in CCU. On the petitioner’s advice, the deceased was admitted in the CCU, but the petitioner did not take care of the deceased and overdose of insulin was administered, which caused the death. Lastly, though the principles are laid down in Harisson’s Principles of Internal Medicine regarding Sugar level and insulin supplement, but with gross negligent of accused persons they administered high dose causing death of the deceased within two hours. Hence, the complaint was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was crystal clear that for some days, the treatment was going on, however, her life was not saved despite the efforts made by the doctors and thereafter the complaint case was filed on the ground that the high dose of Insulin was administered upon the deceased. The Court stated that a preliminary enquiry regarding the said alleged negligence was necessitated. The Court relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 and opined that it was crystal clear that a private complaint might not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor.
Thus, the Court stated that allowing the proceedings to continue, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and accordingly, quashed the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC against the petitioner.
[Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 2156, decided on 18-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Fahad Allam, A.P.P; and Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
