Delhi District Court
Anil vs Lifeline Hospital on 19 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHISH RASTOGI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 05 EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR No.311/2023
Sh. Anil Ahluwalia
S/o Late Sh. N.R.Ahluwalia
R/o 39, Gyan Kunj, Opp. LPS,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
......Revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. M/s Lifeline Hospital
Through its proprietor/Owner/competent Officer
Office At:- A-13, Priyadarshni Vihar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
2. Medical Superintendent (MS)
M/s Lifeline Hospital
Office At:- A-13, Priyadarshni Vihar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
3. Dr. Amir
M/s Lifeline Hospital
Office At:- A-13, Priyadarshni Vihar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
4. Dr. Mohd. Sajid Khan
M/s Lifeline Hospital
Office At:- A-13, Priyadarshni Vihar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
5. Dr. Alam
M/s Lifeline Hospital
Office At:- A-13, Priyadarshni Vihar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
6. Dr. R.P.S. Makkar
M/s Lifeline Hospital
Office At:- A-13, Priyadarshni Vihar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 1
7. The State of NCT of Delhi
Through SHO
PS Laxmi Nagar
East District, Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of institution 31.10.2023
Arguments heard on 27.02.2025
Date of order 19.04.2025
ORDER
1. The instant Revision has been filed against the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Ld.MM, East, Karkardooma Court in Complaint Case titled as Anil Ahluwalia Vs. M/S Lifeline Hospital & etc. vide which the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC of complainant/revisionist was dismissed by Ld. MM-04, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the case was listed for consideration of application U/s 200 Cr.PC. In Brief, it has been alleged by the revisionist that on 18.04.2021 wife of the complainant/revisionist was suffering from minor fever and on 23.04.2021, the complainant/revisionist took his wife to Dr. P.N.Seth lab and as per results, his wife was found infected with Covid-
19. On 25.04.2021 at around 10:00 am, the wife of the complainant/revisionist started feeling difficulty in breathing and as per the advice of Dr. P.N.Seth, the complainant/revisionist took his wife alongwith her Oxygen Cylinder to Max Super Specialty Hospital but they refused the admission of wife of the revisionist on the pretext that beds were not available. Therefore, complainant/revisionist reached the respondent hospital and after the initial checkup and on assurance of the CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 2 Ashish Rastogi Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi Date: 2025.04.19 16:45:45 +0530 revisionist that complainant/revisionist shall himself arrange the oxygen for deceased, the deceased was admitted into the hospital wherein she died afterwards.
2. Ld. Counsel for complainant/revisionist submitted that respondent no. 4 prescribed the Remdesivir Injections of Rs. 25,000/- each and the false prescription of injection which was given amounts to forgery. He further submitted that respondent no. 4 further demanded Rs. 25,000/- for each Remdesivir Injection, in addition, he further submitted that discharge summary demonstrated clear mens-rea of the respondent no. 4 as he predicted the death of the deceased even prior to her demise. He further submitted that medication chart of the deceased clearly shows that her treatment was continuing even after the time of death as per the information given by the hospital. Therefore, he submitted that the Ld. Trial Court proceeded only as IO's report and there is complete non application of mind, as the IO's report concluded that no offence is made out. He further submitted that reliance the case of M/s Skippers Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl.L.J.NOC 333 (Delhi) completely ignores the facts that it is not the case where allegation are not very serious and the complainant is in possession of evidence to prove allegations. Therefore, he submitted that opposite in the case here as allegation of culpable homicide as well as forgery are made out and also complainant is not position to procure evidence to prove his allegations. He further submitted that allegations against the respondent are extremely grave and serious as it has been alleged that the Ashish CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 3 Rastogi Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi Date: 2025.04.19 16:45:55 +0530 oxygen supply of deceased was stopped by the respondent which resulted in her demise. He further submitted that there is gross negligence on the part of the respondent as blood sugar was not monitored and insulin injections were not given to the deceased.
3. In addition, adrenal was also not given which is evidence by the fact that he has not procured it from the pharmacy and it has not been billed. He further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has ignored all these grave allegations and has exercised all the powers vested in it in the most mechanical manner. Therefore, the instant revision petition has been filed.
4. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that all the allegations as levelled by the revisionist/complainant are completely baseless, vague and unsubstantiated. He further submitted that hospital as well as doctors who are the respondents in the instant revision petition exercised the solemm duty of taking care of all the patients including the deceased in the most difficult time when the Covid Infection was at its peak. Petitioner was not provided bed at Max Hospital and he reached the respondent hospital when the condition of the deceased had already deteriorated. He further submitted that when she was brought to the hospital she was in very serious condition with 84 % saturation and her chest X-ray showed by-letral pneumonia. Immediately emergency treatment including oxygen, nebulization and steroid etc. was started. It is Ashish further submitted that the deceased was also suffering from Rastogi Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 4 Date: 2025.04.19 16:46:03 +0530 other disease like diabetes and hypertension which were also responsible for fast deterioration of the condition of the patient. Her condition worsened and her oxygen hit 35 % at about 06:30 pm on 17.04.2021 and she suffered sudden cardiac arrest. He further submitted that the hospital left no stone unturned for taking care of patient and continued with the standard treatment that were administrated to all patients. He further submitted that the allegation that the oxygen supply was deliberately stopped is entirely vague and unsubstantiated. The admission of the deceased in the respondents hospital was taken when the oxygen supply was already very scarce and the revisionist regularly promised that he will arrange the oxygen and he had B type running cylinder with him. He further submitted that allegations regarding the prescription of Remdesivir Injection by respondent no. 4 is also incorrect and without any bases. He further submitted that all the allegations has have been levelled by revisionist are vague and substantiated and without any merit therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC of the petitioner and that order of the Ld. Trial Court does not suffer any illegality or any perversity so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. He further submitted that to prosecute medical professionals for negligence under criminal law and to set criminal law against the medical professionals as well as hospital it must be shown that there was gross negligence on the part of the medical Digitally professional. Moreover, a complainant can only be signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.04.19 CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 5 16:46:09 +0530 entrained if any complaint has produced prima facie evidence before the court with the credible opinion in support of charge of rashness and negligence. In support of this, he placed judgment of Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Ors, Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC, XYZ v. State of M.P.(2023) 9 SCC 705 and Srinivas v. SPECO (2010) 8 SCC 206.
5. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondent in detailed.
6. At the outset, the cantena of Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon'ble High of Delhi have prescribed standards which are to be adopted in case medical professionals are to be prosecuted. In the case of Jacob Mathew vs/ Respondent: State of Punjab and Ors passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Conclusion summed up Para no. 49 We sum up our conclusions as under:-
(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good.
Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission Ashish amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of Rastogi CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 6 Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi Date: 2025.04.19 16:46:22 +0530 negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach' and 'resulting damage'.
(2) Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, 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 for negligence 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 followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used.
(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he Ashish CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 7 Rastogi Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi Date: 2025.04.19 16:46:27 +0530 did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
(4) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam's case [1957] 1W.L.R. 582, 586 holds good in its applicability in India.
(5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution.
(6) The word 'gross' has not been used in Section 304A of IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be 'gross'. The expression 'rash or negligent act' as occurring in Section 304A of the IPC has to be read as qualified by the word 'grossly'.
Digitally CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 8 signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.04.19 16:46:35 +0530 (7) To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.
The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury which resulted was most likely imminent. (8) Res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of evidence and operates in the domain of civil law specially in cases of torts and helps in determining the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. It cannot be pressed in service for determining per se the liability for negligence within the domain of criminal law. Res ipsa loquitur has, if at all, a limited application in trial on a charge of criminal negligence.
7. The court further prescribed guidelines which are required to prosecuting medical professional. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced 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. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam's test to the facts collected in the investigation.
Digitally CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 9 signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.04.19 16:46:42 +0530
8. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sanjeevan Medical Center has also held as under:-
Para no. 07:- On medical negligence Supreme Court has laid down certain precautions to be taken while summoning doctors, in judgments Jacob Matthew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 and Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital (2010) 3 SCC 480. The basic and underlying principle of these three judgments and other similar judgments is that every careless act of a medical man cannot be termed as "criminal". It can be termed "criminal" only when the medical man exhibits a gross lack of competence or inaction and wanton to his patient's safety and which is found to have arisen from gross ignorance or gross negligence. It has been emphasized by Court that mere error of judgment or an accident does not involve criminal liability or mere inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate care would not create criminal liability though it may create civil liability. It has been ruled that a private complaint may not be entertained unless complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of credible opinion given by another competent doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceedings against the doctor, accused of rash and negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service. It was held by Supreme Court in Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (supra):
106. We, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or by the criminal court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was Digitally signed by CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 10 Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.04.19 16:46:50 +0530 made the Consumer Forum or the criminal court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the doctor/hospital concerned. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be ultimately found to be negligent. We further warn the police officials not to arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters laid down in Jacob Mathew case, otherwise the policemen will themselves have to face legal action."
9. Taking into account the above, it is observed that revisionist also filed a complaint before the Delhi Medical Council and the Delhi Medical council has considered the allegations of the complainant. It has been observed that Drug Remdesivir was initially prescribed by respondent no. 4 on 25.04.2025 but the treatment was revised by consultant Dr. R.P.S.Makkar (R-6) therefore, the Remdesivir treatment does not figure on the later prescriptions which were prescribed to the deceased. Moreover, the complainant has not provided any substantiation regarding the alleged purchased of injection of Remdesivir from the hospital pharmacy . In any case, the respondents have submitted that the drug Remdesivir was already in very short supply and was not available with them and no Remdesivir was administered to the patient during her treatment in the hospital. Delhi Medical Council has further observed that there is no mention of administration of Drug Remdesivir in the case notes or CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 11 Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.04.19 16:47:07 +0530 nursing/drug records. In addition, in the medicines invoices also there is no mention of the purchase of drug Remdesivir from the Hospital pharmacy. Regarding the allegation of forgery and fabricated documents, it has been observed that the allegation of forged and fabricated prescriptions do not mention any significant change in the treatment records. The treatment plan was in continuation in the early treatment and in any case were in line with the standard treatment of Covid-19 which was administered to all the patients at that time.
10. Regarding the allegations of revisionist that the deceased was a diabetic and was not administrated insulin and her blood sugar was not monitored, it has been observed that testing of bloods sugar level and insulin administration is clearly noted in the case file, noted in the chart and nursing records. True copy of the bill # 191 clearly proved that sugar was checked and insulin was in- deeded administered. In any case, the discharge summary as well as the history of treatment sheet of the deceased clearly mentions that insulin which was given as one of the treatments during hospitalization. The medication chart of 26.04.2021 also mentions that insulin mix-tard injection was administrated to the patient.
11. The revisionist has also argued that treatment medication chart of the deceased mentions tick marks on various treatments which were administrated to the deceased at 10:00 pm on 27.04.2021. While, as per the respondents themselves, the deceased expired at 06:30 pm Ashish CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 12 Rastogi Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi Date: 2025.04.19 16:47:12 +0530 on 27.04.2021. Therefore, he argues that the medication chart etc. is fabricated and forged.
12. In this connection, it is observed that the vital charts of the deceased are enclosed in Trial Court Record which also mentions the vitals of the deceased alongwith her also SPO2 levels etc. The same clearly mention SPO2 level at 48 % at 05:00 pm on 24.04.2021 and there is a noting at 06:30 pm which notes that the patient suffered from sudden cardiac arrest at 06:30 pm and no vitals could be recorded. Moreover the discharge summary as well as hospital treatment sheet clearly mentions that the time of of death as 27.04.2021. The possibility of the said tick at 10:00 pm in the medication chart could have been a result of clerical error. While observing the same, this court has to take into account the situation at that point which was extremely grave. The medical professionals, nursing staff etc. were gravely overburdened with ever increasing load of patients. The health infrastructure of the entire country was stretched to the limit and therefore to conclude any gross negligence on account of this discrepancy shall not be a prudent approach to take.
13. Taking into the account the above, it is observed that the Magistrate while considering an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC cannot act as a post office and take the allegation as levelled by the complainant as gospel truth and he has to apply his mind as to test the veracity of the allegations and make out as to whether cognizable offence is made out or not. The lodging of FIR sets the criminal law in motion Digitally signed by Ashish CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 13 Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.04.19 16:47:26 +0530 against the parties and the said power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution and the court has to be circumspect in its approach regarding the same and there ought to be application of mind on the allegations as well as materials presented by the complainant and the same is sine qua non for exercising the said power. The order of the Ld. Trial Court can only be interfered in the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by this court if the said order suffers from any illegality or perversity.
14. After taking into account the same, the material presented by the revisionist as well as arguments of the respondents and report of Delhi Medical council, it is observed that there is no illegality or perversity in the order of the Ld. Trial Court in dismissing the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC of the revisionist. In any case, the Ld. Trial Court has observed that the case be pursued as complaint case and if there is any need then police inquiry can be held U/s 202 Cr.PC. In other words, the courts are not powerless to take the assistance to the Police if need arises. Cumulatively, taking into account all the above, it is observed that no case arises as to warrant the interference in the order of the Ld. Trial Court by this court and hence, revision petition accordingly dismissed. Digitally signed by Ashish Announced in the Open Court Ashish Rastogi on 19 th of April 2025. Rastogi Date:
2025.04.19 16:47:33 +0530 (Ashish Rastogi) Addl. Sessions Judge-05 (Electricity) East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi CR No.311/2023 Anil Ahluwalia v. M/s Lifeline Hospital & Ors. Page No. 14