Delhi District Court
In Case Of 'Jacob Mathew vs . State Of Punjab And Another' (Criminal on 16 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU AGGARWAL,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Inder Singh and others
FIR No. 804/2005
Police Station : Najafgarh
Under Section: 304 A IPC and 13(4A) and 15(3) IMC Act
Unique Case ID Number: 429042/2016
Date of institution : 20.11.2007
Date of reserving : 13.12.2020
Date of pronouncement: 16.01.2020
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 849/02/2014
b) Date of commission of : 12.08.2005 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Satish Kumar, S/o Sh. Bishan Dass, R/o House NO. 46, Sainik Enclave, Part-II, Najafgarh, CRPF Camp, Jharoda Kalan, Najafgarh, Delhi.
d) Name, parentage and : 1. Inder Singh S/o Sh. Karam
address of the accused Singh, R/o lot no. 1 and 2, Vinobha
Enclave, Near CRPF Camp,
Jharoda Kalan, Najafgarh, New
Delhi.
2. Smt. Jagjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Inder
Singh, R/o lot no. 1 and 2, Vinobha
Enclave, Near CRPF Camp,
Jharoda Kalan, Najafgarh, New
Delhi.
3. Shivraj s/o Sh. Yugraj, R/o 662
State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 1 of 19
A, Gaushala Road, Najfgarh, Delhi.
(Since deceased)
4. Dr. Vandana Singh, W/o Sh.
Gyan Pratap Sisodia, R/o House
No. 286, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh,
Harayana.
e) Offence complained of : Section 304 A IPC and 13(4A) and
15(3) IMC Act
f) Plea of the accused : All accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquittal
h) Date of final order : 16.01.02020
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is that on 12.08.2005, DD no. 49 A was received in Police Station Najafgarh, New Delhi on receipt of which ASI Balwan Singh alongwith Ct. Jitender reached at the spot i.e. House no. 46, Sainik Enclave, Part-II, Near CRPF Camp, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, where complainant Sh. Satish Kumar met the IO and showed the dead body of his wife Smt. Reeta to the IO. Sh. Satish Kumar gave his statement in writing wherein he alleged that his wife was pregnant and on 12.08.2005, he took his wife to nearby Delhi Clinic where at about 02.30 pm, his wife gave birth to a female child. He added that his wife remained admitted in Delhi Clinic for about one hour and during this period, Dr. Inder Singh and his wife Smt. Jagjit Kaur continued some treatment on her and when her condition got serious, Dr. Inder Singh on his own shifted his wife alongwith Glucose bottle to Gobhania Hospital at about 4.00 pm State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 2 of 19where under the observation of Dr. Shivraj, Dr. Vandana treated his wife for about one and a half hour and during this period Dr. Inder Singh also remained in Gobhania Hospital. Complainant Sh. Satish Kumar further stated that at about 05.45 pm, he was informed by the Gobhania Hospital that the condition of his wife is not well and that it cannot improve there. After this, Dr. Shivraj, alongwith the complainant, one driver, an employee of Gobhania Hospital and mother of the complainant, send Smt. Reeta (since deceased) to DDU Hospital. They reached DDU Hospital emergency at about 06.30 pm where the doctor declared Smt. Reeta as brought dead. Complainant brought his wife back to his house and informed the police.
After recording the statement of the complainant, IO ASI Balwan Singh, got the body of the deceased photographed from the Crime Team and also got it shifted to the mortuary of DDU Hospital for its post mortem. DD no. 49 A was kept pending awaiting the postmortem report. On 13.08.2005, IO ASI Balwan Singh recorded the statements of Dr. Vandana, Dr. Shiv Raj, Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Deepak Sharma (all c/o Gobhania Nursing Home), relatives of the deceased viz. Her mother, her mother in law, her Chacha, Dr. Inder Singh and Dr. Jagjit Kaur. Thereafter, further inquiry was marked to SI Sandeep Sharma, who collected the certificate of registration and degrees of Dr. Inder Singh and Smt. Jagjit Kaur and relevant documents from the Gobhania Nursing Home. SI Sandeep Sharma also gave request to constitute medical board for conducting the PM of deceased Smt. Reeta, on which a medical board was constituted and conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 17.08.2005. However, before giving the final opinion regarding the cause of death, the Board of the Doctors sought certain information from the IO which were provided by the IO. State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 3 of 19Thereafter, on 31.08.2005, the Board of Doctors gave its report that "Death in this case was due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon placenta being retained in the uterus after delivery". Regarding the negligence of doctors, the Board stated "It appears that the delivery was normal but after the delivery placenta was retained and there was heavy bleeding (post partum hemorrhage) for 2-3 hours after delivery and no steps were taken by the doctors for removal of placenta and control of bleeding. No blood transfusion was given. These omissions amount to negligence in our opinion. By the time patient was taken to DDU Hospital it was too late. There are some contradictions in the statements of husband of the deceased, Dr. Inder Singh of Delhi Clinic and Doctors of Gobhania Nirog Dham regarding the duration of stay patient at Gobhania Nirog Dham. But it appears that the negligence was mainly on part of the doctors of Gobhania Nirog Dham where patient was kept for about two hours. However, in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of 'Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Another' (Criminal Appeal Nos. 144-145 of 2004) dated August 05,2005, it is suggested that opinion of specialist in obstetrics and gynecology may be sought regarding negligence of doctors". On this report of the Medical Board, on the letter written by the DCP South West, another medical board consisting of Dr. S Batra, Dr. Professor HOD Gynae Obstetrics M.A.M.C., Dr. U Manaktala and Dr. R. Tripathi was constituted and appointed in the present case. The said board requisitioned all the relevant papers from the IO who provide the same for seeking opinion of the Board headed by Dr. S Batra. During further inquiry, Visera and other exhibits of the deceased were sent to the FSL. The Medical Board, headed by Dr. S. Batra gave the detailed report vide letter no. 342/92/2005/H&FW/1492 dt. 21.11.2005, whereby it was opined that both the hospitals i.e. Delhi Clinic and Gobhania Nirog State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 4 of 19Dham were negligent in treatment of deceased Smt. Reeta which resulted into her death. On the basis of the aforesaid inquiry, SI Sandeep Sharma prepared rukka and got the case registered on 30.11.2005. Site plan of the spot was prepared. Accused persons were arrested and released on police bail. After completion of the necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE
2. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses.
3.1 PW-1 Sh. Satish Kumar is the complainant in the present case who has deposed regarding facts of the case.
3.2 PW-2 H.Ct. Ramesh is the duty officer who had registered the FIR no. 804/2005 Ex.PW2/A in the present case and had made his endorsement Ex.PW2/B on the rukka.
3.3 PW-3 HC Jitender Singh had joined investigation with the IO on 12.08.2005 and 17.08.2005.
3.4 PW-3 Dr. S. K. Khanna, Director Professor, Maulana Azad Medical College (also mentioned as PW-7 during cross- examination) has deposed regarding PM Report Ex.PW3/A, letter to the SHO for records Ex.PW3/B and final opinion report Ex.PW3/C. 3.5 PW-4 Dr. U. Manaktala was a member of the Medical Board and has given report Ex.PW4/A. 3.5 PW-5 Dr. M. K. Wahi, Profesor in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Safdarjung Hospital, was the State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 5 of 19member of the Medical Board constituted to conduct post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. The post mortem was conducted on 17.08.2005 vide post mortem report Ex.PW3/A. Detailed opinion regarding the cause of death was given vide report Ex.PW3/C. 3.6 PW-6 HC Chandan Singh was the photographer Crime Team and had clicked the photographs of the dead body of the deceased Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/8 and negatives are exhibited as Ex.PW6/1.
3.7 PW-8 Dr. Swaraj Batra was the Chairperson of the Second Medical Board. He has deposed regarding the cause of the death of the deceased and medical report Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW4/A. 3.8 PW-9 Sh. Surender Kuamr, Clerk of MDU Rohtak brought the record of the degrees of Dr. Inder Singh and Dr. Jagjeet Kaur Ex.PW9/1.
3.9 PW-10 Smt. Kamlesh Kumari is the mother in law of the deceased Smt. Reeta. She has deposed regarding facts of the case.
3.10 PW-11 Sh. Balwan Singh (Retired SI) is the first IO of the case. He has deposed regarding investigation done by him. He recorded statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A and got the spot photographed. He recorded the statement of doctors and got the body of the deposited in the mortuary of DDU Hospital.
3.11 PW-12 SI Hansraj is the MHC(M) with whom the case property was deposited in the present case.
3.12 PW-13 SI Sandeep Sharma is the second IO of the present case. He has deposed regarding application Ex.PW13/A for constituting medical board for conducting post mortem of deceased, collection of PM Report, sending the exhibits to CFSL and getting the present FIR registered. He has deposed regarding arresting accused Smt. Jagjit Kaur, Inder Singh, Shiv Raj Gobhania vide memo Ex.PW13/E, Ex.PW13/F and Ex.PW13/G. State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 6 of 193.13 PW-14 Inspector Johny Anto is the last IO of the present case. He arrested accused Dr. Vandana vide memo Ex.PW14/A and filed the charge-sheet.
4. During the course of trial, one of the accused, namely, Shiv Raj expired and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 03.9.2016.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
5. In their examination under Section 281 Cr. P. C. read with Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused persons, namely, Dr. Inder Singh, Smt. Jagjeet Kaur and Dr. Vandanda denied the entire evidence put to them. They claimed that they have been falsely implicated. They did not lead any evidence in their defence.
Accused Inder Singh has stated that he is the owner of Delhi Clinic, Najafgarh, New Delhi and Smt.Jagjeet Kaur has stated that she is wife of owner of Delhi Clinic, Najafgarh, New Delhi. They both have stated that on 12.08.2005, Patient Ms. Reeta was brought to their hospital for check up and prior to that she had never taken treatment from their hospital. It was further stated that on checking they came to know that she was having labour pains and her husband informed that they had gone to RTRM Hospital, Jaffar Pur for delivery but there a quarrel took place between the staff and the relatives of the deceased, due to which they came to their hospital. It has been stated that they informed them that they do not conduct deliveries as their clinic was not equipped. The deceased and her husband were their neighbours. It was added that her (deceased's) husband told them to keep an eye on patient Reeta and went to arrange a vehicle to shift her to some other hospital. However, in the absence of her husband, the water bag of the patient got burst and water started oozing out of her vagina and within half an hour of their reaching their hospital, she delivered a baby girl normally. However, the placenta State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 7 of 19did not expel within half an hour, which should have happened in case of a normal delivery. They further stated that they again told the family members of the deceased to shift her to higher centre like RTRM, but they said that since they had a quarrel at RTRM Hospital, they would not go there. The distance of DDU Hospital was higher so they did not refer her to DDU hospital as her condition could have deteriorated. They further added that the family members of deceased told them to arrange some other private clinic on which they talked in various hospitals but gynae doctors were not available there. However, Dr. Shiv Raj, owner of Gobhania Nirog Dham informed that gynae doctor is available in their hospital and asked them to bring the patient there. They hired a van and shifted the deceased to Gobhania Nirog Dham and Dr. Inder Singh also accompanied the patient Reeta. The patient was safely shifted to Gobhania Nirog Dham where she was taken into the Operation Theater. Dr. Inder Singh remained there for about half an hour and thereafter left. It was added that there was no negligence on their part. They neither admitted the patient to their clinic nor charged anything from them. Accused Inder Singh and Jagjeet Kaur did not lead any evidence in their defence.
Accused Dr. Vandana has stated that on the date of the alleged incident, she used to go to Gobhania Hospital, owned by Dr. Shiv Raj for learning purposes with the permission of Dr. Shiv Raj. On the day of the incident, Dr. Shiv Raj told her that a post delivery patient has been received in Gobhania Hospital and he asked her to inform Dr. Geeta Jain as during those days, Dr. Geeta Jain was the Incharge of the Gynae Department in Gobhania Hospital. She made call to Dr. Geeta Jain from the mobile phone of Dr. Shiv Raj as she was not having any mobile phone at that time and informed her about the patient. Dr. Geeta Jain asked her to check the BP and pulse of the patient and inform her. She checked the BP and pulse of the patient, which were found to be very low and accordingly, she informed Dr. Geeta Jain. Dr. Geeta Jain asked her to get the patient referred to some other higher centre through Dr. Shiv Raj. She accordingly informed Dr. Shiv Raj and left the hospital.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 8 of 19FINAL ARGUMENTS
6. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. All the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and therefore, the accused persons deserve to be convicted.
7. On th other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case and therefore, the accused persons should be acquitted. It is added that prosecution has not been able to prove on record any negligence on part of the accused persons leading to the death of deceased Smt. Reeta.
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has relied upon the following judgments :-
1. Dr. Saroja Dharmapal Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application no. 2502 of 2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad vide order dated 12.10.2010.
2. Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another, 2005 CRI. L. J. 3710.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2005, deceased Rita was admitted in Delhi Nursing Home at CRPF Camp for her delivery and she delivered a female child through normal delivery. However, the placenta did not come out and required surgery. The deceased was taken to Gobhania Nursing Home. However, she did not get the treatment in time and she died. The Medical board was constituted for conducting PM of the deceased. PW-3 Dr. S. K. Khanna has deposed that on 17.08.2005, he State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 9 of 19alongwith Dr. M. K. Wahi and Dr. S. Daka conducted post mortem of deceased Rita. PM Report Ex.PW3/A was prepared. The opinion regarding the cause of the death was not provided on PM report and same was provided after receiving complete medical report of the deceased. On the basis of the medical report, final opinion was given vide report Ex.PW3/C. Similar is the deposition of PW-5 Dr. M. K. Wahi.
9. The perusal of Ex.PW3/A reflect that it is stated in the report that on opening the uterine cavity, placenta was found attached in upper part of uterus. Ex.PW3/C is subsequent opinion regarding cause of the death and it is stated that the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon placenta being retained in the uterus after the delivery. PW-3 Dr. S. K. Khanna (also as PW-7) has stated in the cross-examination that placenta was found in the uterus after number of hours after the delivery and there was evidence of shock and history of loss of large amount of blood based on which he gave his opinion. He has also given the reason of not giving the opinion soon after the post mortem and has stated that number of documents regarding the case were sought from the IO and the opinion was giving after obtaining the same.
10. PW-5 Dr. M. K. Wahi has deposed in the cross-
examination that the opinion was formed regarding cause of death as shock finding was there in the organs and placenta was present in the uterus and the opinion was formed on the basis of port mortem finding regarding the cause of death.
11. Ld. Counsel for accused Vandana had given the suggestion to PW-5 that deceased was patient of epilepsy and during the process of delivery she was subjected to attack of State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 10 of 19epilepsy due to which placenta could not expel after the normal delivery. However, the suggestion was negated by PW-5 and he has stated that he conducted the post mortem and no sign suggestive of epilepsy was present. Even no document has been produced by the defence to show that deceased was suffering from epilepsy or there is a possibility of the placenta being not expelled if the patient suffer fit of epilepsy during delivery.
12. PW-4 Dr. U Manaktala was one of the members of the Medical Board constituted regarding death of deceased and he gave his report Ex.PW4/A. The opinion of medical board vide report Ex.PW4/A is reproduced as under :-
1. Cause of death appears to be postpartum haemorrhage following normal vaginal delivery.
2. It appears patient sub optimum management at both places. No uterotonic drugs, blood or surgical intervention were utilized.
3. Precious time was wasted in transporting the patient from one place to another and PPH can be fatal if not managed actively on emergency basis. Pre delivery medical status of patient is not documented in the records, which could also have bearing on outcome.
4. No records appear to have been maintained pertaining to management of patient at either Delhi clinic or Gobhania Nirog Dham.
5. We agree with the report of medical board under Chairmanship of Dr. S. K. Khanna of MAMC.
However, doctors at both clinics appear to be responsible for mismanagement and negligence State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 11 of 19cannot be excluded.
13. Therefore, it is clear from report Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW4/A that the deceased had died as placenta was not removed from uterus well within time causing heavy loss of blood.
14. As per prosecution, complainant admitted his wife Rita in Delhi Clinic for delivery on 12.08.2005 at about 11.00 am. The complainant had given his complaint on 12.08.2005. The said complaint is Ex.PW1/A. In the said complaint, complainant has stated that Delhi Clinic is situated in his neighbor. His wife was pregnant and the term of pregnancy had been completed. On that day, he took his wife to Delhi Clinic at about 11.00 am for check up. However, in his testimony before the court, he has stated that he admitted his wife in Delhi Nursing Home for her delivery. Therefore, PW-1 has improved upon his testimony regarding admission of his wife at Delhi Nursing Home. It is clear from his complaint Ex.PW1/A that he had gone to Delhi Clinic for only check up of his wife, the same being located in his neighbourhood when the term of the pregnancy had completed and he had not gone to admit his wife at Delhi Clinic for the purpose of delivery. This fact is also corroborated by the fact that there are no admission or discharge documents of deceased Rita pertaining to Delhi Clinic.
15. PW-1 has further deposed that his wife delivered female child at 02.30 pm and delivery was normal. Accused Inder Singh is the owner of Delhi Clinic. He has stated in his statement U/s 281 Cr. P. C. r/w Section 313 Cr. P. C. that on 12.08.2005, patient Rita was brought to his hospital for check up. Prior to that she had never taken any treatment from his hospital. On checking, they came to know that she was having labour pain. Her husband informed that State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 12 of 19they had gone to RTRM Hospital, Jaffar Pur for delivery but quarrel took place between the staff of RTRM and relatives of the deceased due to which they came to Delhi Clinic. It is further stated by accused Inder Singh that they informed the complainant that they do not conduct deliveries as their clinic was not equipped. Her husband told them to keep an eye on patient Rita and went to arrange a vehicle to shift her to some other hospital. However, in the absence of her husband, water bag of patient got burst and within half an hour of her reaching at the hospital, she delivered a baby girl normally. However, placenta did not expel within half an hour, which should have happened in the case of normal delivery and at the request of the family members of the deceased, they arranged the vehicle and took the deceased to Gobhania Nirog Dham as Gynae Doctor was available there. Similar facts have been stated by accused Jagjeet Kaur in her statement U/s 281 Cr. P. C. read with Section 313 Cr. P. C. Therefore, accused Inder Singh and Jagjeet Kaur have admitted that deceased was brought to Delhi clinic for the purpose of check up and that she delivered baby girl in Delhi clinic. This fact is also corroborated by the testimony of PW-1.
16. As per PW-1, he took the deceased to Delhi Clinic at about 11 am. However, PW-10 Smt. Kamlesh Kumari has stated in her cross-examination that they took deceased for delivery in the morning at about 08.00 - 09.00 am. Since the time is essential in the present case to decide the culpability of the accused persons as it is proved on record that neither deceased was taken to Delhi Clinic for the purpose of delivery nor she was admitted over there and she was taken to Delhi Clinic only for the purpose of check up, the contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-10 regarding the time when the deceased was taken to Delhi Clinic is a material State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 13 of 19contradiction.
17. The Ld. Counsel for accused Inder Singh and Jagjit Kaur has given suggestion to PW-1 that he reached at Delhi Nursing Home at 1.00 pm, which he has negated. Similar suggestion is given by the Ld. Defence Counsel to PW-10. Therefore, it is admitted by accused Inder Singh and Jagjeet Kaur that PW-1 alongwith his wife had reached Delhi Clinic at about 1.00 pm. A suggestion has been given to PW-1 that doctor told him that he has been blessed with baby girl at about 2.25 pm after a normal delivery. PW-1 has admitted this suggestion, therefore, accused Inder Singh and Jagjeet Kaur have admitted that deceased came to Delhi clinic at about 01.00 pm and delivered baby girl at about 02.25 pm after a normal delivery. Therefore, it is admitted fact that deceased remained in Delhi clinic before delivery for about one and a half hour. In case, accused had informed PW-1 that Delhi Clinic was not equipped to conduct the delivery, then there seems no reason for Delhi Clinic to keep the patient for around one and a half hour. Further, a suggestion has been given to PW-1 that his Bhabhi and mother were present inside the labour room during the process of delivery of his wife to which he had negated. He has voluntarily stated that they were present outside the labour room. The fact that the patient remained in Delhi clinic for around one and a half hour and delivered baby girl in Delhi clinic after one and a half hour and there was labour room at the clinic is sufficient to prove that delivery of deceased was conducted at Delhi Clinic.
18. Accused Inder Singh is the owner of Delhi Clinic and accused Jagjeet Kaur is his wife. It is proved by the testimony of PW- 9 that Dr. Inder Singh and Dr. Jagjeet Kaur had passed BAMS exam in the year 1985. Therefore, accused Dr. Inder Singh and Dr. Jagjeet State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 14 of 19Kaur are Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. As per record, Dr. Inder Singh was duly registered as medical practitioner in Delhi. Dr. Jagjit Kaur is registered as medical practitioner in State of Haryana. As per prosecution, since Dr. Jagjit Kaur was not registered as medical practitioner in the state of Delhi, she could not have practiced medicine in Delhi. Both, Dr. Jagjit Kaur and Inder Singh are BAMS Doctors and are duly authorized to conduct the normal deliveries. Though, as per record, Dr. Jagjit Kaur was not registered in Delhi but this fact by itself does not mean that she was not qualified for conducting normal deliveries. Therefore, both Dr. Inder Sing and Dr. Jagjit Kaur were duly qualified for conducting normal deliveries.
19. The question arises as to who conducted the delivery of deceased Rita at Delhi Clinic. As per PW-1, after delivery Dr. Inder Singh had informed him that placenta has to be removed and for that purpose a small surgery is required. At his instance, he alongwith his mother and Dr. Inder Singh departed from Delhi Nursing Home at 3.30 pm and reached Gobhania Nursing Home at 3.45 pm. Though, in his complaint Ex.PW1/A, he has stated that accused Inder Singh and Jagjeet Kaur kept on treating his wife after delivery, however, he has not so stated in his evidence before this court. Even in the cross- examination, he has stated that Dr. Inder Singh told him that placenta has not been removed and Dr. Jagjeet Kaur was also present at that time. Therefore, it is clear from the testimony of PW-1 that it was Dr. Inder Singh who conducted the delivery of deceased Rita and Dr. Jagjeet Kaur was merely present there. The fact that Dr. Jagjeet Kaur is wife of Dr. Inder Singh and was present with him at the Delhi Clinic does not attract any criminal liability as against her unless it is proved that she did some overt act which amounted to State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 15 of 19gross negligence on her part for causing the death of the deceased. Since there is no evidence on record to show that Dr. Jagjeet Kaur had given treatment to deceased Rita and had done any overt act amounting to gross negligence on her part, she is not liable in any manner.
20. As regard Dr. Inder Singh, it is proved that he conducted the delivery of deceased Rita. It is also admitted fact that deceased delivered the baby girl at around 2.30 pm. PW-4 Dr. Usha Manaktala has deposed, in the cross-examination that normally placenta comes out in half an hour. PW-8 has deposed that the normal duration of placenta to come out from the body is 5-7 minutes and it may take 30 minutes if she is not bleeding excessively. He has further deposed that while preparing the report, the quantum of the blood which had come from the body of the deceased has not been mentioned. He has further deposed that the decision for immediately transferring the patient in case placenta is not coming out can be taken only after using remedial measures such as drip, drug etc. or calling the expert in the panel. It is clear from the testimony of above witnesses that in normal circumstances, the placenta comes out on its own within the span of 30 minutes. In case, the placenta is not able to come out in its own within the span of 30 minutes, the remedial measures are required. In the present case, the delivery took place at 2.30 pm and placenta should have come out by 3.00 pm. The deceased was shifted Gobhania Nirog Dham at about 03.30 pm. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that during the travel from Delhi Clinic to Gobhania Nirog Dham, he had not seen any bleeding from the body of his wife. Therefore, it is clear from the testimony of PW-1 that there was no excessive bleeding from the body of the deceased when she was shifted to Gobhania Nirog State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 16 of 19Dham. Further, after waiting for a normal time, which the placenta takes to come out, the patient was shifted to the other hospital. It is deposed by PW-4 that it was a high risk case and proper diagnosis should be made before delivery. However, no document has been produced by the prosecution as to what treatment was provided to the deceased before delivery during her pregnancy by the family members or where and under which doctor she was being treated during her pregnancy. It is proved that the complainant had taken his wife to Delhi Clinic only for check up and that too for the first time, when she delivered a child. Therefore, there was no mean for the doctors of Delhi Clinic to find out whether it is a high risk case or not. It is also not the case of the prosecution that entire medical history of the deceased was deposited/shown by the complainant to Doctors of Delhi Cinic.
21. PW-4 has further deposed that the board had opined that no uterotonic, blood or surgenical utero or surgical intervention were utilized in the present case as the same was not mentioned in the records provided. The deceased had died on 12.08.2005 and post mortem was conducted on 17.08.2005. Therefore, the post mortem was conducted after five days of the death of deceased. The opinion that no remedial measures were taken by the doctors after the plancenta could not come out is given on the basis of the records as supplied by the IO and not on the basis of the post mortem of the deceased. Therefore, it was not possible for PW-4 to opine that the remedial measures were not taken on the basis of post mortem conducted. There is nothing on record to suggest that Dr. Inder Singh did any overt act so negligent as to endanger the life of deceased Reeta and therefore, no case is made out against him.
22. It is not disputed that deceased Rita was taken to State v. Inder Singh and Ors.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 17 of 19Gobhania Nirog Dham from Delhi Clinic. As per PW-1, when they reached at Gobhania Nirog Dham, he met with Doctor Vandana and after preliminary examination she told him that the case is very serious as bleeding was heavy. After examination of his wife in emergency room, Dr. Vandana told him that some cotton and one scissor was left in the person of his wife and the case is very serious. His wife was treated upto 5.30 pm and treatment was given by Dr. Vandana. Deceased Dr. Shiv Raj (proceedings abated) and 3-4 nurses. There is no evidence on record to show that the cotton and the scissor were left inside the body of deceased Rita. Even during post mortem, no cotton and scissor were found inside the body of deceased Rita. PW-1 in his complaint Ex.PW1/A has nowhere stated that cotton and scissor were left inside the body of his wife and same information was given to him by accused Dr. Vandana.
23. Accused Vandana has taken the defence that she was only a trainee doctor at Gobhania Nirog Dham and therefore, she cannot be held liable for the death of the patient Rita. The perusal of the case file reflect that there is one dispensary register of 12.08.2005 of Gobhania Nirog Dham on record. Though the dispensary register was not produced in the evidence but the same has been collected by the IO during the investigation and was relied upon by the prosecution. The perusal of dispensary register reflect that deceased Rita was admitted in Gobhania Nirog Dham under deceased Dr. Shiv Raj Choudhary. The patient was not admitted under Dr. Vandana. Vide letter mark B dated 14.09.2005, PW-8 Dr. S. Batra sought the record from the IO for giving opinion on PM Report and said record was submitted. As per the said record, Dr. Vandana was qualified from Russia and was required to pass screening test for being registered as medical Practitioner in Delhi.
FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 18 of 19However, she had not passed any screening test and therefore was not entitled to practice medicine. The question arises as to whether in fact Dr. Vandana was practicing medicine and had given any treatment to the deceased, though not qualified for the same. The perusal of the case file reflect that there is no document on record to show that Dr. Vandana had given any treatment to the deceased, though not qualified for the same. Merely because she assisted Dr. Shiv Raj in the treatment will not make her criminally liable for death of the deceased. Further as per the records as submitted by the police with Dr. S. Batra, one letter dated 30.08.2005 was received from Dr. Geeta Jain addressed to SHO PS Najafgarh. As per the said letter, Dr. Vandana informed Dr. Geeta Jain about deceased and that condition of the patient was very poor. She asked Dr. Vandana to check BP, PIR, RIR and O2 etc. and to inform her. After 10 minutes, Dr. Vandana informed her that BP, PIR, RIR and O2 was very low and she advised Dr. Vandana to refer the patient to DDU Hospital. Therefore, it is clear from the record that neither Dr. Vandana was qualified to give any treatment to the deceased nor she treated the deceased. She merely checked the parameters of her body to inform Gynecologist Dr. Geeta Jain and therefore, she cannot be held liable for any gross negligence in performing her duty.
24. Provisions of Section 437 A Cr. P. C. have been complied with. Digitally signed by ANU ANU AGGARWAL
25. File be consigned to record room. AGGARWAL Date:
2020.01.24 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 17:12:14 +0530 DATED: 16.01.2020 (ANU AGGARWAL) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI.
State v. Inder Singh and Ors.FIR No. 804/2005 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 19 of 19