Delhi District Court
State vs . Dr. V.K. Mehta on 28 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Dr. V.K. Mehta
FIR No.92/01
U/s : 471 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 30.01.2003
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 28.10.2014
Date of judgment : 28.10.2014
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 92/01
2.Date of the Commission : 26.06.2002
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Dr. V.K. Mehta S/o Late Sh. B.L.
: Mehta R/o H. No. C-24D, Saket, New
: Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Dr. R.P. Bhola S/o Late Sh. R.L. Bhola
: R/o M-30, Saket, New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : 471 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 1/8
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2002, accused Dr. V.K. Mehta fraudulently used as genuine the consent form of the deceased Dr. V.K. Bhola dated 06.08.99 which accused knew or had reasons to believe at the time when he used it to be a forged document and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant namely Dr. R.P. Bhola, an FIR bearing number 92/01 under section 471 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 30.01.2003.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC was framed against the accused namely Dr. V.K. Mehta and read out to the said accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 17.07.2006.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:
6. PW-1 ASI Ranbir Singh who is a formal witness was examined on 21.12.2010 and proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW-1/A and his endorsement on the basis of rukka Ex. PW-1/B (OSR).
7. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
8. PW-2 Dr. R.P. Bhola was examined on 20.10.2011 and deposed that on 05.08.99 he had got examined his wife from accused FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 2/8 present in the court on account of pain in her abdominal and on examination the accused told that she was having gall bladder and his wife was called next day empty stomach to be examined by panel of doctors so this witness along with his wife reached at clinic of accused at H. No. H-16B, Saket, New Delhi on 06.08.99 and his wife went into the room of doctor and the accused opined that there was pain in abdominal so they would give her injection for which his wife refused and he was called inside and he persuaded his wife for getting the injection and left for his clinic and accused gave her injection. He further deposed that he came back at about 8.00am at the clinic of accused and found that his wife getting operated in operation theater without his concern and when he inquired the accused in this regard, accused told that his wife was suffering from great pain so they had to perform the operation. He further deposed that he waited outside and at about 10.30am the accused asked for sending operation cylinder to the OT immediately as the same was not available and at about 11.00am the accused informed that his wife has suffered from cardiac arrest and when he looked pulse of his wife, he found that she was dead and he got shocked on conduct of doctor of not informing him about death of his wife. He further deposed that his wife had never any history for cardiac or respiratory problem and her last ECG was also normal and doctor had not obtained his consent before operating his wife. He further deposed that accused afterwards forged and fabricated operation notes to falsely show cardiac arrest and also mentioned in the notes that monitor beep went off at 10.45am and deceased suffered cardiac arrest and respiratory failure. He further deposed that operation notes are false and fabricated and in fact no alleged cardiac arrested or respiratory attack suffered by the deceased and accused had false and fabricated the consent form of operation of his wife and used the same as genuine of FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 3/8 dated 06.08.99 which was very well known by him that the same is forged and fabricated and due to rash and negligent act of accused his wife died in operation theater. He further deposed that the accused had prepared two consent forms, one was given to the Delhi Medical Counsel and second was given to AIIMS and both forms were different. In this regards, his complaint given to ACMM, Patiala House is Ex. PW-2/A, on the basis of which present FIR lodged.
9. This witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity given.
10. PW-2 Dr. T.D. Dogra was examined on 23.05.2012 and deposed that in reference to application dated 15.01.2000 addressed to Professor T. D. Dogra, the board was constituted of which he was appointed as a Chairman and the board submitted its report on 25.04.2000 which bears his signature at point A and they opined that as no postmortem was conducted in this case, it is not possible to opine the cause of death. His detailed report in this regard is Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer was asked to submit certain clarifications in regard to anesthesia and same were submitted to the board by letter dated 10.06.2000 and the board gave its final opinion on that issue on 12.09.2000. It opined that in view of the above explanation, no prima facie negligence was observed on this account i.e. anesthesia. The report is Ex. PW-2/B which bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement to this effect.
11. This witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity given.
12. PW-3 Dr. Anurag Shrivastav and PW-4 Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj were examined on 28.06.2012 and 21.01.2013 and deposed on similar lines FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 4/8 to PW-2.
13. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
14. PW-5 Dr. S.K. Khatri was examined on 27.06.2014 and deposed that in the month of May 2002, he was posted at Deputy Registrar and Secretary of Delhi Medical Counsel and on those period in a complaint against Dr. Neeraj Aggarwal, Dr. S.K. Chabra, Dr. V.K. Mehta and Dr. N.S. Lather of Dr. Mehta Urology and Surgery Center. The matter was examined by Delhi Medical counsel under its disciplinary jurisdiction, as per which the cause of death could not be ascertained in this case on the basis of information available from the documents on record and examination of the doctors who treated the deceased. He further deposed that no postmortem was performed on the deceased and this was the decision of the Delhi Medical counsel which was conveyed under his signatures. The photocopy of the said report is on judicial record, same is marked as R-1 bearing his signature at point A.
15. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
16. PW-6 SI Satvinder Singh was examined on 26.08.2014 and deposed that during 28.03.2002 to 27.05.2002 he was posted as SI at PS Malviya Nagar and during those period, he had been assigned for the investigation of the present case and during investigation he had made efforts to expedite the opinion from DMC Maulana Azad Medical Institute and later on the investigation of the present case was transferred to DIU South District.
17. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 5/8
18. PW-7 SI Vijay Sanwal was examined on 26.08.2014 and deposed that on 06.09.99 he was posted as SI at PP Saket and on that day the complaint was received regarding medical negligence by complainant against Dr. V.K. Mehta. Other two more complaints dated 18.09.99 and 20.09.99. Thereafter, he had taken medical opinion from AIIMS. The detail/written from AIIMS hospital had been collected, same is already Ex. PW-2/A. Subsequently, on 12.09.2000 supplementary opinion had been received from AIIMS hospital, same is already Ex PW-2/B. He further deposed that on 30.01.2001, order u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was received from Hon'ble court on which he had made endorsement on the complaint is Ex. PW-6/A. He further deposed that during investigation he had submitted the relevant document of this case for opinion before Delhi Medical counsel. Subsequently, the investigation of the present case had been assigned to another IO.
19. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
20. PW-8 Smt. Kamlesh Samson was examined on 01.09.2014 and deposed that she had gone to Mehta Nursing Home to get her son Nebulized as he was Asthmatic. She further deposed that at that time, one Dr. Mrs Bhola (name she does not remember however, she refreshed her memory just now) had come alone for some surgery and as she was working as a Nurse in AIIMS, she signed the consent form as there was no other relative accompanying the said patient, on humane grounds. She further deposed that one other person whose name she does not remember, who was a Sardar had also signed on the consent form. Thereafter, she left the Nursing Home with her son. Thereafter, she does not remember after how many days she was called by the police, but she was called with regard FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 6/8 to the incident that happened on the day on which she signed the consent form qua the patient. She further deposed that she had signed the consent form vide memo Ex. PW-8/A bearing his signature at point A as nobody was accompanied the patient. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police however, same was not signed by her.
21. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the patient was having I.V. Line on her hand and she was not objecting to the surgery.
22. PW-9 Dr. I.B. Singh was examined on 08.09.2014 and deposed that on 25.04.2000 he was posted as Assistant Professor in AIIMS Hospital administration and on that day he was the member secretary of medical board for framing opinion on complaint Dr. R.P. Bhalla regarding alleged death of his wife Late. Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Bhola. The detail opinion is already Ex. as PW2/A bearing his signature at point D and already Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point D.
23. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
24. PW-10 HC Ranbir Singh was examined on 08.09.2014 and deposed that on dated 01.01.2003 he was posted as HC at DIU South Distt. Nehru Place and on that day accused V.K. Mehta arrested in the present case in his presence. He further identified the accused present in the court.
25. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
26. Apart from these ten witnesses, no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite repeated opportunities given. Hence, PE was ordered to be closed on 01.10.2014. The statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 28.10.2014 wherein he FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 7/8 stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and does not want to lead any defence evidence.
27. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused person and Ld. APP for state. Heard.
Reasons for Decision
28. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses in the present matter including complainant. Thereafter, summons upon PW namely A. Balsani being material witness received back unexecuted with the report that he was not traceable. Considering the testimonies of witnesses, it is clear that the offences u/s 471 IPC committed by accused Dr. V.K. Mehta does not stand proved. In view of the same, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Dr. V.K. Mehta is hereby acquitted of the offence charged u/s 471 IPC.
Previous bail bond in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to remain in force for a period of 6 month from today. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Court
on 28.10.2014 (CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/28.10.2014
Certified that this judgment contains 8 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/28.10.2014
FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 8/8