Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Dr. Ruchika Sood vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 1 April, 2022

Author: Jasmeet Singh

Bench: Jasmeet Singh

                          $~35
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CRL.M.C. 1348/2022, CRL.M.A. 5938/2022
                                 DR. RUCHIKA SOOD                                     ..... Petitioner
                                                    Through:       Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Adv.

                                                    versus

                                 STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.               ..... Respondent
                                                Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State, SI
                                                         Naresh, PS Dabri
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                          ORDER

% 01.04.2022 CRL.M.A. 5939/2022

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 0777/2018 u/s 304A IPC, P.S. Dabri, District-Dwarka, New Delhi and consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before Delhi Medical Council alleging medical negligence on the part of doctors of Dadadev Matri Avum Shishu Chikitsalaya, in treatment of his wife Smt. Ritu resulting in her death on 02.03.2017.

5. The Delhi Medical Council in its meeting held on 18.10.2018 held:

"whilst confirming the decision of the disciplinary Committee, the council observed in the facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment for the removal of name of Dr. Ruchika Sood (Delhi Medical Council Registration No. 45054) awarded by the disciplinary committee was a bit harsh and the same was not warranted. It was further observed that interest of justice will be served if a warning is issued to Dr. Ruchika Sood (Delhi Medical Council Registration No. 45054) with a direction that Dr. Ruchika Sood (Delhi Medical Council Registration No. 45054) with a direction that Dr. Ruchika Sood should undergo six hours of continuing Medical education (C.M.E.) on the subject "Labour Induction" and to submit a compliance report to this effect to the Delhi Medical Council within a period of three months.

The council also confirmed the punishment of warning awarded to Dr Nisha Yadav (Delhi Medical Council Registration No. 17195) by the disciplinary committee. This observation is to be incorporated in the final order to be issued. The order of the Disciplinary Committee stands modified to this extent and the modified order is confirmed"

6. The respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the order passed by the Delhi Medical Council and filed an appeal on 26.12.2018 before Medical Council of India.

7. The "Board of Governors in supersession of Medical Council of India" passed the following order on 16.03.2020:

After hearing both the parties, the Ethics Committee is of the view that Misoprostol 25 mg is now approved for induction of labor to be given 4 hourly till she is half way in labor. Two doses of same were given by Dr. Ruchika Sood Four hourly and till that time Fetal Heart Sound (FHS) were ok. This was also confirmed by Dr. Nisha Yadav.

The LSCS was decided by morning team only on appearances of meconium and not on drop of FHS.

The fact the baby was born alive, shows that rupture uterus could not be diagnosed due to impacted head in pelvis. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:01.04.2022 19:40:39 moment baby was out and may be during manipulations while taking out the baby, it precipitated the rupture. It is unfortunate that these kind of ruptures are noted after delivery of baby. They present as broad ligament hematoma and no blood is found in the peritoneal cavity once the abdomen is opened. In view of the above, the Ethics Committee strongly feels that Dr, Ruchika Sood & Dr. Manju Yadav are not at fault at all in patient management and care. Therefore, they may be exonerated from all charges of negligence against them ...

The above recommendations of Ethics Committee have been accorded approval by the board of Governors at this meeting held on 06/01/2020.

8. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that once the expert committees have held that the petitioner was not at fault, the FIR and the charge sheet cannot be sustained.

9. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, states that there are other accused persons in the FIR and the petitioner should make all the accused persons as parties to the present petition.

10. Mr. Sandeep Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks and is granted liberty to implead all the accused persons in the FIR and file an amended memo of parties. Mr. Sharma shall file status report within 4 weeks. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 by all means, including electronically.

11. This is an application on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay of criminal proceedings pending before the learned MM.

12. Issue notice. Mr. Sharma accepts notice. Let notice be issued to respondent No. 2.

13. In view of the fact that the Board of Governors, which is the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:01.04.2022 19:40:39 disciplinary authority as well as a board comprising of experts, has held that the petitioner is not at fault. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has a prima facie case in her favour.

14. Hence, till the next date of hearing, criminal proceedings in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in Cr. Case No. 8406/2021 shall remain stayed.

JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 1, 2022/dm Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:01.04.2022 19:40:39