Delhi District Court
Ct. Cases/529485/2016 on 22 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-04/CENTRAL: DELHI
Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr. K. N. Singla
Case No. 529485
CC No. 684/SR/14
P. S. : Sarai Rohilla
U/s 304A IPC
Date of institution of case : 05.10.1999
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 18.02.2017
Date of judgment : 22.03.2017
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 02.07.1999 b) Offence complained of : 304A IPC c) Name of complainant : Chaudhary Lal Gandhi d) Name of accused : Dr. K. N. Singla his parentage, : s/o Late Sh.Shyam Sunder, local & permanent residence: R/o: C-3/68, Phase II, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty f) Final order : Acquitted BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. The allegations in the complaint are that complainant's son Anil Gandhi was having fever on 01.07.1999 and on the recommendation and advise of Dr. K. N. Singla the complainant got him admitted in Golden Century hospital at around 11.00 pm in the night of 01.07.1999. Therein Anil Gandhi CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 1/16 was given one bottle of glucose and certain tests were recommended regarding the treatment. In the morning of 02.07.1999 the condition of Anil Gandhi improved. However, at around 09.00 am another bottle of glucose was injected to Anil Gandhi and as a result of same Anil Gandhi started shivering and his blood pressure dropped drastically. So much so that the family members of Anil Gandhi did not find any sign of movement in the body of Anil Gandhi. Thereupon, the Golden Century Hospital Dr. K. N. Singla advised the complainant to shift Anil Gandhi to Jaipur Golden Hospital for further treatment. When the complainant and his family members reached the Jaipur Golden Hospital along with the body of Anil Gandhi, they were asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 2705/- which were deposited by the complainant vide three receipts nos.307986, 307888 and 308004. Thereafter, the Jaipur Golden Hospital declared Anil Gandhi as dead at 12.45 pm itself whereas the time of admission to the hospital was 12.44.36 seconds pm. Complainant alleged that in the month of September he came to know that his son Anil Gandhi died due to adulterated glucose and due to the medical negligence of both hospitals in his treatment. As per complainant, the shifting of patient was a mere eye wash by Dr. K. N. Singla as he was himself running the Golden Century hospital and was also one of the visiting doctors of Jaipur Golden hospital. Complainant further alleged that he tried to get the casesheets of Anil Gandhi from both the hospitals to know the cause of death but both hospitals denied him the documents. Complainant alleged that Dr. K. N. Singla in order to cover up the lapse in treatment given to Anil Gandhi at Golden Century hospital recommended his shifting to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Complainant alleged that Dr. K. N. Singla did so to shift the liability from Golden Century Hospital to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Complainant further alleged that even Jaipur Golden Hospital was in connivance with Dr. K. N. Singla as his son was declared dead at 12.45 pm but the amounts of Rs. 500/- and 2705/- were deposited at 12.56 and 2.23 pm as reflected in the respective CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 2/16 receipts.
2. On filing of present complaint, the Court directed the concerned SHO to seize the medical record of both hospitals and file the same before the court. Record was received and attached with the file.
3. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined himself as CW1. He deposed on the same lines as per his complaint.
4. One Dr. Vikas Rampal, (CMO, Sushrut Trauma Center, Civil Lines, Delhi) was called as an independent witness by the court and was examined as CW2. He deposed that if intravenous fluids contain any contaminants/pyrogens or otherwise are of expiry date and same are injected to any patient, it can cause severe reactions similar to anaphylactic reactions. He deposed that in such cases the initial symptoms are of severe chills and rigors and the patient feels extremely cold extremities and palpitations. He deposed that all the qualified doctors of modern medicines are taught about such reactions during their training. He deposed that if properly detected in time and the contaminant is immediately stopped and immediate treatment is started, the reaction can be controlled in majority of the cases. He deposed that if there is delay in detection or action is very severe, the patient may require ICU care and in some case ventilator support. He also deposed that in a comprehensive care set up, there should be complete set up to meet any eventuality. After seeing the record of Jaipur Golden Hospital as on file, CW2 deposed that it is evident that endotracheal tube with which the patient was shifted to Jaipur golden hospital was not in a position and it had to be replaced at Jaipur Golden Hospital and the patient has no pulse, no recordable BP, no respiratory effort and the patient was admitted at 12.45 pm and was declared dead at 12.45 pm on the same day.
CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 3/16
5. On the basis of aforesaid evidence the court summoned only the accused Dr. K. N. Singla for the offence u/s 304A IPC and the hospitals Golden Century Hospital and Jaipur Golden Hospital were not summoned though they were arrayed as accused persons in the complaint.
6. On the basis of pre summoning evidence a notice/charge was framed against the accused u/s 304A IPC. Though the said notice was amended subsequently to incorporate all the allegations but the accused chose not to recall and examine any witness of the complainant thereafter again. The accused pleaded not guilty to the offence and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, complainant examined himself as CW1 and deposed that on 01.07.1999 they had gone to accused house for treatment of their son Anil Gandhi wherein accused asked them to go to Sunderlal Jain Hospital for conducting some tests. Thereafter, they took their son to Sunderlal Jain Hospital wherein they got conducted all the tests, obtained blood reports and went again to accused residence at about 10.00 pm on the same day to show the reports. He deposed that on seeing the report, accused referred them to Golden Century Hospital for glucose administration. Accordingly, they took their son to Golden Century Hospital and got him admitted therein where his son was administered glucose and on the next day in the morning the glucose was removed and his son was asked to take bath and have a tea. Accordingly, his son took a bath and then had a tea. Thereafter, his son called complainant at home and asked them to bring some food for him. At about 10.30 am his son was administered glucose but just after the start of process of administration of glucose, the condition of his son started deteriorating and his son complained that his legs have become lifeless and doctor was called, who was on duty. In the meanwhile, his son CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 4/16 also vomited and on this doctor on duty removed the glucose and gave one injection to his son and before that they were removed from the room and they were standing on the stairs when he was being dealt with doctor on duty at that time and they heard that their son was calling Dr. Singla and the doctor on duty then called Dr. Singla, who advised to send the patient to Jaipur Golden Hospital in Ambulance. Thereafter, ambulance was called, some equipments like cylinder were placed inside the ambulance and patient was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital with two doctors. He deposed that at the time of shifting the patient from hospital to ambulance, oxygen was being pumped to the patient artificially and they were asked to reach Jaipur Golden Hospital and thereafter they went to Jaipur Golden Hospital on two wheeler. He deposed that on reaching Jaipur Golden Hospital on two wheeler they inquired about their son and they were told that "he was brought dead". There was no body movement in patient when he was being removed from Golden Century Hospital to Ambulance and Dr. Singla was also present in the Jaipur Golden Hospital and he had taken the patient upstairs and they were asked to deposit Rs. 500/- and asked to wait till the patient was located. He further deposed that after 10 minutes they were again asked to deposit Rs. 500/- and they deposited the same. Thereafter they were told that the deceased was in ICU and they all went to ICU where they were again informed that at about 12.45 pm the patient had already been declared dead. Thereafter, they were asked to contact police but they were very disturbed and kept on roaming here and there and finally they were told verbally by police that there would be requirement of post mortem but hospital was not allowing him for registration of FIR and thereafter finally they were given the body at about 2.30 pm through ambulance and the body was sent to their home and they were charged Rs. 2700/- from them. In support of his testimony he also relied upon the documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/10 (medical bills/reports/other record).
During his cross examination, CW1 denied that his son was suffering CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 5/16 from high fever and vomitting when he was taken to Dr. K. N. Singla for the first time. He admitted that he did not lodge any report at number 100. However, he stated that he had gone to police station but the police refused to accept his complaint as post mortem of the deceased was not conducted. He further deposed that he did not make any effort for the post mortem of his son and even the police did not got conducted the post mortem. He further deposed that he stayed at Golden Century hospital for about one and a half hour and he was outside the hospital as he was so instructed but his wife was inside the hospital with his son all the time. He denied that he had improved upon the statement. He deposed that he did not get the opportunity to ask for bottle of glucose whose administration caused the problem. He denied the suggestion that glucose was not provided by the hospital and was rather brought by the relative of the patient from outside as the hospital only provides drug or other material only in case of emergency. He denied the suggestion that his wife was the one who brought the said bottle from the market. CW1 could not say as to whether the best possible care and treatment was given to his son, being a layman. However, he denied the suggestion that Dr. Singla was not negligent in attending his son and that due treatment was given by the attending doctors. However, he admitted that deceased had high grade fever for three/four days for which he consulted Dr. Singla who advised some blood test and re-examined the patient in the evening along with test reports. However, he denied that patient was dehydrated and had very less intake during the day. He admitted that accused advised admission in hospital for intravenous fluid for supplementation as in the opinion of accused the patient was suffering from dehydration. CW1 neither admitted nor denied that when morning intravenous fluid was started, the doctor on duty reported that patient was having shivering, convulsions, dropping blood pressure and vomiting, as CW1 was not present there. He admitted that accused advised him to transfer the patient to a higher center for further management under full precaution like CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 6/16 suction machine, oxygen and ambu bag support. CW1 neither admitted nor denied that when patient was admitted in Jaipur Golden hospital, surgical ICU he was unconscious, pulse-less, BP less but there was no brain death, as CW1 had not reached there at that time. CW1 neither admitted nor denied that all efforts were made to resuscitate the patient but unfortunately he could not be revived. He admitted that the probable cause of death may be viral fever leading on to Encephalopathy convulsion, vomiting, aspiration into trachea, wind pipe, asphyxia etc. or it could be viral fever leading to myocarbitis, drop in BP, convulsion, vomiting aspiration into trachea, wind pipe, asphyxia. CW1 neither admitted nor denied the suggestion that glucose was administered by two other doctors at duty at Golden Century Hospital. He denied that he is deposing falsely to extort money from accused under the grab of present case.
8. During Post summoning evidence, Dr. Anil Shandil, Assistant Professor, LLRM Medical College Meerut was examined as CW2. He deposed that as per the medical record on file Ex.CW2/1 collectively and statement of court witness Dr. Rampal he is of the opinion that life of the patient could have been saved. He deposed that there was gross inattention, inefficiency and lack of exercise of reasonable degree of care and skill in treating the patient and while transferring the patient to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He deposed that as per medical record the patient had no past medical and surgical illness. Secondly the patient was admitted in hospital in general care, not in ICU, HDU signifying as per concept of progressive patient care that the patient needed minimal simple care and patient was not suffering from any serious disease or ailment. Thirdly, the patient's condition deteriorated after admission and patient was transferred to Jaipur Golden hospital where he was declared dead. As per him, these circumstances show that there was absence of immediate expertise treatment, appropriate medical and nursing cover, CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 7/16 appropriate monitoring set up and no well trained medical escort as the patient was reintubated in Jaipur Golden Hospital in casualty on arrival and was declared dead. As per CW2 the treating doctor did not identity the critical condition of the patient, access the stability to avoid the deteriorating condition while transferring and treating the patient. CW2 pointed out that urgency of providing the specialist care and transfer should have been balanced taking into consideration the stability of the patient. As per CW2 there was no assessment of severity as physiological as well as hemodynimically the deteriorating condition of the patient and whether recovery was possible or not.
CW2 was cross examined at length by the defence Counsel but he re-affirmed his stand that had there been appropriate and immediate expertise treatment, medical and nursing cover, and routine monitoring of vitals, and adequate resuscitation, the life of the patient could have been saved. He re-affirmed that patient was not transferred with expertise medical treatment, well trained medical escort with adequate medical nursing cover as the patient reached Jaipur Golden Hospital pulseless, BP less and no patent airway evident from medical record. However, he admitted that as per record of Jaipur Golden Hospital the patient reached there at 11.00 am and his treatment was started.
9. Thereafter the complainant evidence was closed and incriminating circumstances were explained to the accused. Accused admitted that the patient was admitted to Golden Century hospital. He stated that glucose bottle was already started from the time of admission of patient Anil Gandhi. However, he stated that patient was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital as per the desire of family members of the patient. He denied that patient was declared brought dead at the time of arrival at Jaipur Golden Hospital. He denied that endotracheal tube was not in its position when the patient CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 8/16 reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital. He stated that he do not remember that the test reports of the patient were shown to him at this residence on 01.07.1999 at 10.00 pm. He stated that the family members of the patient admitted him to Golden Century hospital. He stated that he do not remember that Anil Gandhi was admitted and administered glucose the next day in the morning and the glucose was removed and Anil Gandhi was asked to take a bath and have a cup of tea. He said that it is a matter of record that Anil Kumar Gandhi himself used the washroom without any help and support, took bath and had tea at Golden Century hospital in the morning of 02.07.1999 and on the same day he was declared dead after few hours when shifted to Jaipur Golden hospital. He stated that it is matter of record that as to whether at 10.30 am the patient Anil Kumar Gandhi was again administered glucose and after administration of glucose his condition deteriorated and he complained that his legs have become lifeless and doctor was called. He stated that it is a matter of record as to whether Anil Gandhi vomitted and doctor removed glucose and gave one injection to him. He stated that he cannot say that CW1 was removed from the room and he heard Anil Kumar calling the accused and the doctor on duty called the accused and the accused asked to send the patient in ambulance and the ambulance was called and the patient was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He stated that he was highly educated and possesses bachelors and masters degree from Government Medical College, Rohtak, Haryana and had completed his tenure as Senior Resident and then DNB fellowship from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. He stated that he was practising clinical/critical medicine since 1981. He stated that the alleged glucose bottle was brought by the family members of the patient and there was no post mortem conducted on the deceased and there was no medical board formed to examine the case and there was also no police complaint against him by the family members of the patient at the time of death. He stated that no clinical examination of the alleged glucose bottle had been CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 9/16 conducted. Hon'ble National Commission had also not found him liable in the case filed by the complainant and others. He stated that the complainant wanted to harass him and wanted to extort money from him. Further, he preferred to lead defence evidence and examined one defence witness.
10. Sh. Anil Goel, Ld. Counsel for accused, was examined as DW1. This witness deposed that the legal heirs of the deceased late Anil Gandhi filed a complaint bearing no. 281/2000 against the accused and Golden Century Hospital before Hon'ble National Commission, on the same set of allegations which were the subject matter of the present complaint. He was the Counsel for the accused in the said complaint. He stated that vide final order dt. 16.05.2014 the said complaint was dismissed. Computer generated copy of the said final order was marked as mark A. He stated that the said copy was downloaded by him from the official website of Hon'ble National Commission and the same was still available on the aid official website. He stated that he was ready with the internet on his smart-phone and can show the said order on the official website right now. He further deposed that Sh. Satender Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant was also the Counsel for the complainant in the said case before the Hon'ble National Commission.
11. After examination of one defence witness, defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, arguments of both parties were heard.
DECISION OF THE CASE AND REASONS THEREOF
12. I have considered the material facts and circumstances of the case, the relevant legal provisions, the case law and the arguments of both the parties. Same are discussed in succeeding paras:
CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 10/16 A. Accused is facing trial for the offence u/s 304A IPC. Section 304 A IPC states that" Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
Accordingly, the essential ingredients of said offence are :
1. That accused was doing a particular act i.e. rendering medical advice/treatment.
2. That accused acted rashly or negligently while rendering such advice/treatment.
3. That such rashness or negligence resulted into causing of death of some person.
B. It is further to be noted that the term negligence used in the section does not mean mere carelessness. The rashness or negligence must be of such nature so as to be termed as a criminal act of negligence or rashness. It is the degree of negligence which really determines whether a particular act would amount to rash or negligent act as defined under this section. It is also essential to establish that death is the direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused. It must be causa causans - the immediate cause, and it not enough that it may be causa sine qua non - proximate cause. Further, courts have repeatedly held that great care should be taken before imputing criminal rashness or negligence to a professional man acting in the course of his professional duties. A doctor is not criminally liable for a patient's death unless his negligence or incompetence passes beyond a mere matter of compensation and shows such a disregard for life and safety, as to amount to a crime against the state. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab 2005 CrlJ 3710 that in cases of medical negligence the consideration to be kept in mind by a forum while trying the CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 11/16 issue of medical negligence are:
1. That legal and disciplinary procedure should be properly founded on firm, moral and scientific ground.
2. That patients will be better served if the real causes of harm are properly identified and appropriately acted upon.
3. That many incidents involved a contribution from more than one person, and the tendency is to blame the last identifiable element in the chain of causation - the person holding the "smoking gun".
Hon'ble Court further held that in case of medical profession a simple lack of care or an error of judgment or an accident is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day he cannot be held liable merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused follows. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen that whether those precautions are taken which the ordinary experience of man has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precaution which might have prevented that particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. The court further held that a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings; (1) either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, (2) he does not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The court further held the test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam's case (1957) I WLR 582, 586, holds good in its applicability in India.
C. In the present case, it is not the case of complainant that accused did not possess the requisite skills/qualification to treat the patient. It is also CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 12/16 not the case of the complainant that the treatment sought to be given by the accused to the patient was erroneous. The specific case of the complainant is that accused was negligent in treating the patient. Firstly, that the patient was administered adulterated bottle of glucose. Secondly, there was negligence in treating the patient thereafter and during the shifting of patient from Golden Century Hospital to Jaipur Golden hospital. Both of these allegations are discussed in detail in succeeding paras.
D. As far as the issue of adulterated bottle of glucose is concerned, the complainant has alleged that bottle in question was provided by the hospital itself. However, on the contrary, the accused has claimed that it was brought by the relative of the patient from outside. Be that as it may, the relevant question is whether there was any patent defect in the glucose bottle i.e. whether there was any such defect in the glucose while it was being administered that any ordinary doctor would have noticed such defect and would not have proceeded with administering the same to the patient. For example, the bottle bore any expiry date and the glucose had expired before the day of its administration or there was some fungus or discolouration or any other physical manifestation indicating that the glucose was not fit for human consumption/treatment. However, no evidence has been led by complainant or any other witness to show that there was any patent defect in the glucose bottle. As far as latent defect in the glucose is concerned, the same would have been known only after the allergic reactions in the patient as allegedly occurred in the present case. However, the said bottle was never seized and examined forensically to know the latent defects in the glucose. Accordingly, there is no sufficient evidence to show that there was negligence per se in administering the glucose to the patient.
E. The second part of allegations are qua the treatment of patient CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 13/16 after the allergic reactions started on administration of the alleged glucose bottle. CW2 Dr. Anil Shandil has given a generic opinion that patient could have been saved and there was gross inattention/inefficiency and lack of exercise of reasonable degree of care and skill in treating the patient and while transferring the patient to Jaipur Golden Hospital. However, he has based his opinion partly on the examination of another doctor i.e. Dr. Vikas Ramphal who was examined only at pre summoning stage. Thus, opinion of Dr. Anil Shandil is further based on the opinion of another doctor. Further, Dr. Anil Shandil has based his opinion on the medical documents/record seized from Golden Century hospital and Jaipur Golden hospital. However, the said record was never proved by the complainant through the concerned police official who seized the same or the concerned person who prepared the same. Now, coming on merits, CW2 has given his opinion on the basis of the facts i.e. (1) medical record mentions no past medical or surgical illness of the patient and (2) the patient was admitted in general care and not ICU and (3) the patient's health deteriorated at Golden Century hospital and had to be shifted to Jaipur Golden hospital where he was declared dead. He has concluded that last fact shows that there was absence of immediate expertise treatment/appropriate medical nursing cover, appropriate monitoring set up and no well trained medical escort as the patient was re-intubated in Jaipur Golden hospital in casualty on arrival and declared dead. I have given due consideration to the said aspects of testimony of CW2 (irrespective of the fact whether the medical record of the patient have been duly proved or not). However, it is to be noted that CW2 has not prescribed as to what particular procedure should have been adopted while treating the patient after he suffered the allergic reactions. He has not even filed or referred any medical literature to show what was the appropriate procedure to be followed in such case. He has stressed on the fact that there was omission of care and caution on the part of treating doctors/staff. Here, another crucial aspect is to be noted. As per the testimony CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 14/16 of CW1 (complainant) the accused was not present when the patient suffered the allergic reactions or during the subsequent treatment in Golden Century hospital or even during the shifting of the patient in the ambulance. As per CW1, the doctor on duty dealt with the patient and the accused arrived at Jaipur Golden hospital directly. Thus, the alleged omissions in the treatment of patient during the absence of the accused cannot be imposed on the accused vicariously. It is not the case that the patient was being operated upon and the accused left the operation in between or that patient was highly critical at the initial stage only but the accused did not kept him under his personal monitoring. Accordingly, the accused cannot be held accountable for the aforesaid lapses, if any. Further, it is also to be noted that CW2 Dr. Anil Shandil was of firm opinion that the life of the patient could have been saved. However, as observed earlier, the negligence of a doctor cannot be decided only on such parameter wherein the patient could have been saved by a higher skilled professional. Lastly, it is also to be noted that CW2 has admitted in his cross examination that as per record the patient reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital at 11.00 am and his treatment was started. Thus, his claim that patient was declared dead on arrival in Jaipur Golden Hospital is at variance with the medical record.
F. It is also to be noted that no post mortem on the body of the patient was conducted. CW1 has claimed that the police told him that there was requirement of post mortem but hospital did not allowed registration of FIR. However, whatever may be the cause of non conducting of autopsy, the definite cause of death would have been ascertained through post mortem/viscera examination only. Though CW2 has claimed that post mortem was not necessary to know cause of death in the present case and as per his opinion the circumstances signify the cause of death as cardio respiratory arrest. However, in the absence of any definite findings of the post mortem, CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 15/16 the cause of death of patient could be due to various factors i.e. the previous fever, any contaminant in the glucose, the consequent allergic reaction or the subsequent mis-handling of the situation or any other underlying cause. However, the court cannot proceed to impute criminal liability on the accused on the basis of probabilities only. As mentioned earlier, for the offence u/s 304A IPC the act of accused must be the causa causans and not merely causa sine non. Thus, the alleged negligence may have contributed into worsening the situation of the patient but cannot be concluded as the actual cause of death of the patient.
Accordingly, in view of aforesaid observations, complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused. Therefore, accused Dr. K. N. Singla is acquitted of the offence charged against him u/s 304A IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SACHIN SANGWAN)
TODAY ON 22nd MARCH, 2017 MM-04 (CENTRAL),
DELHI
CC No.684/SR/14 Chaudhary Lal Gandhi v. Dr.K. N. Singla Pages 16/16