Delhi District Court
Rohit Bhati vs Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 21 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010042642020
Cr Rev/144/2020
ROHIT BHATI Vs. ROCKLAND HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.
AND ORS.
Rohit Bhati
S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram Bhati
R/o Flat No. 9, Type 4 Jal Vihar,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi ................ REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. Rockland Hospital
Through Director/ Chairman/CMO
Address:-B-33, 34, Qutab Institutional Area
New Delhi.
2. Dr. P. S. Roy.
3. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari,
C/o Rockland Hospital
B-33, 34 Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi ................. RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.09.2020
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 13.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 21.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this revision, revisionist takes exception to the order dated 31.07.2020, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case bearing no. 465048/2016, titled as Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospital & Ors' whereby, the Digitally signed by Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 1 of 18 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:30:49 +0530 complaint filed by revisionist under section 200 CrPC stood dismissed.
2. Brief facts, as noted by Ld. MM in the impugned order, are not in dispute and the same are being reproduced for the sake of convenience :-
" In brief the allegations as per the complaint are that in May 2009 father of the complainant namely late S.R. Bhati had visited Rockland Hospital for his checkup and diagnosis and some tests were advised to him by consultant Dr. S.K. Singla. That thereafter in June, 2009 he again consulted with said doctor who again advised some tests and on the basis of diagnosis, he advised him for surgery of hernia assuring that it was a minor and safe surgery. That subsequently one day, he got admitted in the hospital in supervision of Dr. Sanjay Tiwari and after necessary formalities, the patient was shifted to Operation Theatre. That after 2-3 hours the doctor came and stated that patient was conscious even after dose of anaesthesia and therefore they were going to give him double dose of anaesthesia. On this information, the complainant and his family members denied for surgery and stated to obtain the second opinion from another hospital, however doctor ignored the request and entered into operation theater. That complainant and his family members also moved to CMO office, however CMO was not present. That subsequently at about 5.00 pm, father of the complainant was declared dead and thereafter the call was given to police. That dead body was sent to AIIMS hospital for post-mortem and there after on 07.07.2009 the complainant given a written complaint against the proposed accused persons for their negligence. That no action was taken by the police and accordingly the complaint was filed in the present court."
3. Trial Court record reveals that the revisionist in support of his allegations, in pre-summoning evidence examined himself as CW1, Dr. Sudhir Gupta as CW-2 and ASI Ravinder Kumar as CW-3.
4. Ld. MM, vide impugned order, dismissed the complaint of the revisionist finding no sufficient ground to summon the respondents/accused. The relevant observations of Ld. MM are being reproduced for the sake of convenience:-
Digitally Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 2 of 18 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:30:54 +0530 "8. Now, in view of this legal position, coming to merits of present case, it is to observe that it is the report of experts recieved from Delhi Medical Council and it is certainly very material and carries a lot of weight. As per the said report, opinion has been given that there was no negligence on part of either of the doctors in question.
Let me examine the said report in detail qua role of each concerned doctor.
9. As per the report, Dr. Sanjay Tiwari, proposed accused herein, who was supervising the surgery of the deceased on 06.07.2009 had averred in his written statement that on the said date, as Dr. S.K. Singla was not available, he was asked by the hospital administration to perform surgery on the patient Sita Ram Bhati and the patient was taken into OT for the surgery and anaesthesia team of the hospital was doing their job. That when he was getting ready for the surgery, he was informed by the anaesthesia team that surgery was post-poned due to some complication during anaesthesia. Accordingly it was opined by Delhi Medical Council that the surgery which was to be performed by Dr. Sanjay Tiwari never started and there was no remotest possibility of death of the patient due to negligence at intra-operative or post- operative period complication. Now to verify the fact if surgery had commenced or not, let me avert to the post-mortem report of the deceased, which is there on the file. From the said report, it can be seen that no surgical cut was made on the abdomen for purpose of surgery of umbilical hernia. Undoubtedly post-mortem report is the best document to verify, if any surgery was done or not on the deceased before his death. Accordingly, when the surgery itself has not commenced, there cannot be any question of involvement of Dr. Sanjay Tiwari, who was supervising the said surgery. Therefore, I am satisfied with the opinion given by Delhi Medical Council in this regard to the effect that there cannot be any possibility of intra- operative or post- operative negligence on part of Dr. Sanjay Tiwari.
10. Coming further, it is to observe that as stated by the complainant, patient was allegedly to be given the second dose of anaesthesia, when he remained unconscious after the first dose. Accordingly, now let us examine, if there was any negligence on part of anaesthetist while giving the dose of anaesthesia. As per the allegations of the complainant, Doctor had told him to give the second dose of anaesthesia, however as per the submissions of anaesthetist Dr. P.S. Roy made before Delhi Medical Council, as reflected from the report of Dehi Medical Council, second dose was never in picture and the patient had suffered severe anaphylactic attack during injection of anaesthesia. To verify the said submission of anaesthetist, let me examine, the drugs used upon the patient. Now as per the para-wise reply given by Rockland Hospital to the report of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS hospital i.e. Ex.CW2/A, there were six drugs used on the patient. It can be seen that drugs for purpose of anaesthesia included (i) Inj. fentanyl 60 Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 3 of 18 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:30:57 +0530 mcgm. and (ii) Inj. tropofol 100allegations of the complainant, Doctor had told him to give the second dose of anaesthesia, however as per the submissions of anaesthetist Dr. P.S. Roy made before Delhi Medical Council, as reflected from the report of Dehi Medical Council, second dose was never in picture and the patient had suffered severe anaphylactic attack during injection of anaesthesia. To verify the said submission of anaesthetist, let me examine, the drugs used upon the patient. Now as per the para-wise reply given by Rockland Hospital to the report of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS hospital i.e. Ex.CW2/A, there were six drugs used on the patient. It can be seen that drugs for purpose of anaesthesia included (i) Inj. fentanyl 60 mcgm. and (ii) Inj. Tropofol 100 mg supplemented by one ml of 2 % Xylocard. These are the same drugs, which have been mentioned in the report of Delhi Medical Council and it can be observed that they were used at one time only. Now there is nothing on record to infer that quantity of these drugs was more than the required limit prescribed for any patient. Therefore, again there is no reason to conclude that patient would have died due to overdose of anaesthesia and therefore, there cannot be any liability of anaesthetist for negligence.
11. Going one step further, it is to observe that from the report of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS Ex.CW2/A as well as from the opinion Ex.CW2/B, it was opined that patient had died to anaphylactic shock and this is the same reason death which was stated by anaesthetist before Delhi Medical Council. However as per the report Ex.CW2/A and again as deposed by CW-2 Dr. Sudhir Gupta, the case of the deceased was under category of ASA-1 and patient was expected to survive with better health. Accordingly, now the next question to be examined is whether the anaesthetist present near the patient or the other concerned doctors of hospital administration had taken the required steps to recover the patient/deceased from anaphylactic shock?
12. In the regard, it is to be seen from report of Delhi Medical Council that, as stated by Dr. P.S. Roay, anaesthetist, when patient suffered a severe anaphylactic shock which resultant server hypertension, bradicardia and de-oxygenation, immediately intensive resuscitative measures were put in place and indubation was tried, however as it was found difficult, an LM was put in and the patient started responding positively. That at that time, Professor Mazumdar, HOD of Rockland Hospital came in and took over the case. That he removed LM and started the process of blind nasal indubation which was done successfully. However, the patient again started de-saturating and thereafter the patient was put on ventilator and shifted to ICU where continuous intensive, supportive and anti- oedema measures were instituted. That inspite of the same, patient could not be revived and was declared dead.
13. The steps taken by the hospital after the patient suffered Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 4 of 18 2025.03.24 13:31:01 +0530 anaphylactic shock, can be further seen in the statement of Dr. Rajeev Malhotra, as reflected from the report of Delhi Medical Council. He stated that when patient had developed bradycardia, followed by hypotension and fulminating pulmonary oedema leading to sudden cardiac arrest, he was managed immediately with CPR, IV Lasix, Soda Bi-Carb and Efcorline. That patient temporarily responded and thereafter cardiologist was called, who inserted perivenous pacemaker. That patient was put on ventilator and shifted to ICU on injection dopamine and injection dobuta, however inspite of best effort, the patient continued to deteriorate and ultimately expired.
14. Accordingly, in view of the said report, I am of the view that all the required steps which could be taken to recover the patient from anaphylactic shock and resultant bradycardia were taken by the concerned doctors of hospital and if despite that death of the patient occurred, it cannot be said due to negligence of the doctor but only as an Act of God or something which was ordained to happen. This is the same conclusion drawn by Delhi Medical Council.
15. At this stage, regarding the difference in opinion of Dept. Of Forenisc, AIIMs and in the opinion of Delhi Medical Council, it is to oberve that the opinion by AIIMS was given on the basis of limited reports avialabe before them, however the report of Delhi Medical Council has been given after detailed investigation. Even otherwise, one report cannot supersede the other. In this regard, the observation by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Martin F.D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 is also relevant which is as follows:
"43. It is not enough to show that there is a body of competent professional opinion which considers that the decision of the accused professional was a wrong decision, provided there also exists a body of professional opinion, equally competent, which supports the decision as reasonable in the circumstances."
16. In view of aforesaid discussion, I come to the conclusion that there is no material on record for proceeding against either of the proposed accused persons and consequently, complaint is hereby dismissed."
5. Revisionist has filed the instant petition assailing the impugned order on various grounds which can be summarized as under:-
i. that the Ld. MM did not consider the opinion on post-mortem report of deceased dated 13.07.2009, which was given by the board of five doctors, headed by Dr. Sudhir Gupta, head of forensic medicine AIIMS, Digitally Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 5 of 18 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:05 +0530 New Delhi.
ii. that the Ld. MM did not consider despite opinion and suggestion of board of doctors vide report dated 13.07.2009, that in accordance with the American Society of Anaesthesia, the present case falls in the classification of ASA-1 and the society recommends that classes 1-3 require full investigation as they expected to survive.
iii. that despite the report of AIIMS and suggestions / opinion of board of doctors that the case should be investigated as early as possible by police, the police officials of PS Hauz Khas delayed the investigation deliberately and did not investigate the matter as per law.
iv. that the Ld. MM did not consider that the police officials did not call the complainant/revisionist and his family members to join the investigation or to inform about the progress of the case.
v. that the Ld. MM did not consider that the police officials of PS Hauz Khas neither collected the drugs or injections administered to patient / deceased in operation theater nor they collected the other relevant documents from the hospital.
vi. that the Ld. MM did not consider that the subsequent opinion on post-mortem report and viscera analysis report were against the respondents. vii. that the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the report prepared by the Delhi Medical Council on the Digitally Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 6 of 18 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:09 +0530 basis of sketchy, illegible and incomplete documents is full of contradictions, without proper verification of documents and testimony of witnesses.
viii. that the Ld. MM did not consider that in the para wise reply to AIIMS hospital and in the report to the Delhi Medical counsel there are contradictions. ix. that the Ld. MM did not consider that as per the post-mortem report the deceased was allergic to sulphar drugs, however no such allergy was mentioned in the pre-check-up documents of the patient as prepared in Rockland Hospital, while he was admitted in hospital for surgery.
x. that the Ld. MM did not consider that as per the pre-
summoning evidence of CW-2 Dr. Sudhir Gupta, Head of Forensic Medicine AIIMS, New Delhi, the deceased Sita Ram Bhati was expected to survive with better health after completion of above consented surgical intervention.
xi. that Ld. MM failed to realize that the accused persons did not produce the relevant medical documents of the deceased before the board of doctors of AIIMS hospital and Delhi Medical Council therefore, in the absence of oral and documentary evidence, it was difficult to reach on the decision that the doctors of hospital administration had taken the required steps to recover the patient/ deceased from anaphylactic shock.
xii. that the Ld. MM has failed to consider the fact that Digitally Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 7 of 18 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:12 +0530 there are major contradictions in the statement of the witness Dr. P. S. Roy and Dr. Monar Khurshid regarding availability and production of documents before Delhi Medical Counsel, on the basis of which report dated 11.03.2020 was prepared.
6. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by Ld. counsel for the revisionist and the Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 and also perused the record.
7. Ld. counsel appearing for the revisionist argued on the line of grounds as mentioned in the instant revision petition. He has vehemently argued that Ld. Trial Court committed grave error in passing the impugned order as the same was passed hastily ignoring the factual matrix and materials available on record. It is urged that it is a case of negligence within the meaning of section 304-A IPC as the Doctors were negligent in attending the patient. It is submitted that going by the nature of desease and as submitted by Medical board, the patient was expected to survive with better health after operation. He argued that the material available on record is abundant to take cognizance and summon the respondents for alleged offence. On the strength of these arguments, revisionist seeks setting aside of the impugned order.
8. Per contra, Ld. counsel appearing for respondent no.1 refuted the said contentions by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or incorrectness. It was vehemently argued that no case for summoning is made out against the respondent Digitally Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 8 of 18 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:17 +0530 no. 1 or even other proposed accused persons. He further argued that the impugned order was passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case including the testimonies of complainant's witnesses. He argued that Ld. Magistrate rightly observed that there is no sufficient material on record to proceed further against the proposed accused for the offence alleged against him by the revisionist in the present case. It was further argued that allegations as leveled by revisionist is frivolous in nature and as such, no offence is made out against the respondents. He submitted that no offence u/s 304-A is made out as the patient was continuously attended and every possible effort was made to save him. It was submitted that the present revision petition is misconceived and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.
9. The complainant has filed the complaint for taking cognizance and summoning the accused persons for offence under Sec. u/s 304A/34 IPC. To substantiate the averments, the complainant has examined himself as CW- 1, Dr. Sudhir Gupta, Head of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, as CW-2, to prove the Post-mortem report and the subsequent opinion of Medical Board and ASI Ravinder Kumar as CW-3 to bring the summoned record from his department.
10. To substantiate the averments, the complainant has examined himself as CW-1 but failed to prove a prima facie case against the respondents/accused. Admittedly, the father of revisionist/ complainant was admitted in Digitally Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 9 of 18 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:21 +0530 Rockland Hospital for umbilical Hernia surgery by Doctor S.K.Singhla. However, on the day of surgery Dr. S.K. Singla was not available and Dr. Sanjay Tiwari was asked to perform the surgery. The patient after pre-operative check-up was shifted to operation theater. After two-three hours the family members were informed that patient is conscious despite giving anaesthesia and on same day at about 5 P.M. they were informed about the death of the patient. Complainant has alleged that the death was due to the negligence and carelessness of Dr. Sanjay Tiwari who operated the patient, Dr. P.S. Roy, who gave the second dose of anaesthesia and that of the administration of Rockland Hospital who failed to take steps to recover the patient/ deceased from anaphylactic shock.
11. The post-mortem of deceased was performed on 07.07.2009 and according to the subsequent opinion on post-mortem report the cause of death was anaphylactic shock.
12. The revisionist/complainant has examined Dr. Sudhir Gupta, Head of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, to prove the Post-mortem report and the subsequent opinion of Medical Board. Dr. Sudhir Gupta stated that he conducted the post- mortem of body of deceased Sita Ram Bhati and as per subsequent opinion Ex. CW-2/B, Medical Board found that as per American Society Anaesthesia the case falls in category of ASA-1 and the society recommended that class 1-3 required full investigation, as they were expected to survive. CW-2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta reiterated the Digitally signed by Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 10 of 18PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:26 +0530 same what he has opined in his report Ex. CW-2/B and has not deposed anything contrary to the report of medical board and that of report filed by the Delhi Medical Council.
13. The complainant has alleged that the death was caused due to negligence of Dr. Sanjay Tiwari during operation. However, there is nothing on record to implicate Dr. Sanjay Tiwari for the alleged offence. From the examination of post mortem report and Viscera report, Delhi Medical Council has observed that no surgery was performed on the body of said patient. The post-mortem report of the deceased and the report of Delhi Medical Counsel, makes it clear that no surgery was done on the deceased before his death. Hence, I do not find any reason to take a view different from what Ld. MM has taken, that the opinion given by Delhi Medical Council in regard to this effect, there cannot be any possibility of intra- operative or post- operative negligence on part of Dr. Sanjay Tiwari.
14. The another reason given by the complainant for cause of death is the negligence of Dr. P. C. Roy by giving the second dose of medicine for anaesthesia. Dr. P. C. Roy in his statement given to the Delhi Medical Councel has stated that no second dose of anaesthesia was given to the patient as the patient had suffered severe anaphylactic attack during injection of anaesthesia. Same is supported by the medical document provided by the Rockland hospital to the Department of forensic medicine, AIIMS Digitally signed by Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 11 of 18PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:31 +0530 hospital. As per the medical records of Rockland Hospital the patient was given, Inj. Fentanyl 60 mcgm.I/V, Inj. Hydrocortisonne 100 mg I/V, Inje. Norcuron 8mg. I/V and Inj. Propofol 100 mg + 1ml of 2% xylocard (for cellular stabilization) 1/V for the purpose of anaesthesia. Immediately after the administration of these drugs the condition of patient started deteriorating. There is nothing in the report of Delhi Medical council or otherwise on record to show that the patient died due to overdose of anaesthesia or that he was given the said medicines or any other medicine for anaesthesia for second time. Thus the complainant failed to show any negligence on the part of Dr. P C Roy the anaesthetist.
15. It is also asserted that the board of doctors vide report dated 13.07.2009 have given the opinion that, in accordance with the American Society of Anaesthesia, the present case falls in the classification of ASA-1 and the society recommends that classes 1-3 require full investigation as they expected to survive. Ld. MM has rightly observed that the opinion of AIIMS was given on the basis of limited reports, however, the report of Delhi Medical council has been given after detailed investigation.
16. As far as allegations that the Hospital failed to take steps to recover the patient/ deceased from anaphylactic shock is concerned, Dr. Rajiv Malhotra, Vice President- Medical, Rockland Hospital and Dr. P C Roy have given their statement to Delhi Medical Councel that the moment Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.03.24 13:31:35 +0530 Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 12 of 18 the patient suffered a severe anaphylactic shock, with resultant severe hypotension, bradycardia and deoxygenation, immediately, intensive resuscitative measures were put in place, intubation tried, but when they found it difficult without wasting time, LM was put in and immediately, the patient started responding positively. At that time, professor Mazumdar, HOD, Rockland Hospital Delhi came in and took over the case. He removed LMA and started the process of blind Nasal intubation which was done successfully, however, the patient again started desaturating and was put on ventilator after shifting him to ICU, where continuous intensive supportive and anti- oedema measures were instituted. Inspite of that the patient could not be revived and was declared dead. The Delhi Medical Council after going through all the record and after recording the statements, has concluded that the patient might have suffered severe Bradycardia and fall in saturation due to inability to secure airway and intubate the trachea and there is nothing in medical record to suggest that the patient died on Anaphylaxis as mentioned in the postmortem report and the subsequent opinion given by medical board. It was observed in the report that once the patient was intubated, he was managed as per accepted professional practices in such case, therefore no medical negligence can be attributed on the part of doctors of Rockland hospital. A perusal of the said report suggest that no case of medical negligence is made out on the part of the administration of Rockland Hospital. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:38 +0530 Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 13 of 18
17. After going through the Delhi Medical council Report received on 11.03.2020, it is revealed that the following opinion has been recorded therein:-
"(1) At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that copy of medical records made available to the Delhi Medical Council, were sketchy, illegible and were not in any chronological order. However, based on material on record, it is observed that the patient Shri S. R. Bhati, a 57 years old made, with a diagnosis of umbilical hernia and history of diabetes mellitus with Hypothyrodism was taken up for surgical procedure of Lap mesh Umbilical hernia repair, under consent on 6th July, 2009. The patient was allergic to sulpha drugs as per the records. The patient was tekn up for surgery, but the same was not carried out. As per the intra-operative monitoring record, the induction time mentioned was 11.00 hours. However, as per the 11.30 hrs notes within ten minutes of intubation, the patient suddenly developed bradycardia, following which atropine was given.
However, the saturation fell to 90%. All analgesics were stopped but the patient went into cardiac arrest. Resuscitation measures were initiated. The patient was put on pace maker with 100% ventilation supprot and shifted to ICU. The possibility of allergic reaction to some analgesic drugs was noted. His condition continued to remain critical and at 16.20 hrs he again had an arrest, CPR was initiated but could not be revived and declared dead at 1700 hr on 06 th July, 2009.
(2) It is observed that as per the subsequent opinion in respect of post mortem report No. 652/2009 the cause of death is mentioned as anaphylactic shock, case falling under the category one of ASA-1:
but there is nothing in medical records to suggest that the patient died of anaphylaxis, as no sign or symptoms which are associated with a such a medical event or treatment which is given to manage such a complication, is found anywhere in the medical records of the said hospital.
(3) It seems that the patient might have suffered several bradycardia and fall in saturation due to inability to secure airway and intubae the trachea.
(4) The decision to remove the rescue airay device of LMA and intubate the patient blindly is questionable: however, the patient's oxygen saturation improved after nasal endotrcheal intubation was accomplished.
(5) It is observed that once the patient was intubated, he was managed as per accepted professional practices in such case.
In light of the observations made herein-above, it is the decision of the Disciplinary Committee that no medical negligence can be attribute on the part of the doctors of Rockland Hospital, in the treatment of Shri Sita Ram Bhati."
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 14 of 18 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:43 +0530
18. A perusal of the said report suggest that no case of medical negligence is made out on the part of doctor Sanjay Tiwari, Dr. P.S.Roy or on the part of Rockland Hospital.
19. In case titled Jacob Mathew Versus State of Punjab and others 2005(5) Supreme 297 Hon'ble apex court observed that "a private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced a prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor."
20. The complainant has not examined any other doctor or medical expert in his pre-summoning evidence to give a contrary opinion from the one given in the Delhi Medical Council report. No document has been produced on the record to show the negligence of the said doctors/respondents.Thus, there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the report of Delhi Medical Council. Perusal of Delhi Medical Council Report reveals that there are no negligence on the part of the respondent/accused. So, no case is made out for summoning the respondents for offence under 304-A IPC as there is no negligence.
21. In the matter of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 15 of 18 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:47 +0530 Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
22. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 observed as under :
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
23. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, this court in its revisional jurisdiction, is not expected to substitute its own view with that of court below unless the order passed by Ld. Trial Court suffers from jurisdictional error or patent infirmity/illegality. In the instant case, as Digitally signed Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 16 of 18 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:51 +0530 evident from record, Ld. Magistrate while narrating (in detail) the facts, passed a well reasoned detailed order, thereby dismissing the complaint of revisionist under section 203 CrPC finding no sufficient ground for proceedings against the respondents and therefore, this court cannot and rather ought not substitute its own view with that of Ld. Magistrate (while exercising its revisional jurisdiction) and thereby arriving at a different conclusion. This court is of the view that the Ld. MM has provided clear and cogent reasons for not summoning the respondents and it is clearly not for this Court to second guess the decision.
24. It is a settled law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods & Anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128, wherein it was observed:-
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 17 of 18 PATHAK Date:
2025.03.24 13:31:54 +0530
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
25. Similar are the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindranatha Bajpe vs Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. & Others, Crl Appeal No.1047- 1048/2021 dated 27th September 2021. If the factual matrix of the present case is tested upon the touchstone of the principles as laid down in said cases, I am of the considered view that no ground for summoning of respondents was made in the instant case and therefore the view as taken by Ld. MM cannot be faulted with.
26. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set aside, Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
27. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed off.
28. TCR alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
29. The revision file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date: 2025.03.24
13:32:01 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH)
21st DAY OF MARCH,2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 18 signed pages) Cr Rev/144/2020 Rohit Bhati Vs. Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Page no. 18 of 18