Kerala High Court
Dr.Kamala Rajaram vs Dy.Sp Office Of The Sp (Rural)
Author: N.K.Balakrishnan
Bench: N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/19TH BHADRA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 861 of 2006 (C)
--------------------------
CC.425/2002 of J.M.F.C., NEYYATINKARA
---------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :-
-------------------------
DR.KAMALA RAJARAM,
D/O.M.A.SUBRAMANIAN, `KARTHIKA' RAILWAY STATION
ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN
RESPONDENTS :-
---------------
1. DY.SP OFFICE OF THE SP (RURAL),
NEYYATTINKARA.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
CRL.M.C.No.861/2006
APPENDIX
Petitioner's Exhibits :-
Annexure A1 :- Copy of the post mortem report issued by
the Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine and Deputy
Police Surgeon.
Annexure A2 :- Copy of the circular dated 31/10/89.
Annexure A3 :- Copy of the final report dated 15/11/2001.
Annexure A4 :- Copy of the order dated 22/2/2006.
Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL.
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.861 of 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of September 2012
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.425/2002 of J.F.C.M., Neyyattinkara. The crime
alleging offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC was registered in the year 1999.
2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was working as Gynecologist in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Neyyattinkara. On 28.10.1999, a patient by name Sreeja was brought to the hospital with labour pain. It is alleged that the petitioner was not the duty doctor at the relevant time as her duty was over by 2 PM. She was at her residence. As informed, she went to the hospital and examined the patient at about 3.30 PM and directed the Medical Officer to admit her in the hospital. According to the petitioner, she had attended the patient and gave Crl.M.C. No.861 of 2006 -: 2 :- proper medical aid and the patient (Sreeja) gave birth to a normal child at 7.15 PM. According to the petitioner, it was thereafter some complications developed. In regard to the same, she is not responsible since she was not the duty doctor at the relevant time, she contends.
3. According to the prosecution, the petitioner attended the patient in a negligent manner and it was as a result of the same, patient died on her way to SAT Hospital. A crime was registered against the petitioner for causing the death of the patient by medical negligence. After conducting investigation, final report was filed against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC.
4. The District Panel Report was obtained in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. As per that report, the petitioner was found to be negligent. As against the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Apex Body. Besides, she also moved this Court by filing writ petition as W.P.(C) No.28546/2006. A petition was filed at Crl.M.C. No.861 of 2006 -: 3 :- the instance of the accused to discharge the accused under Sec.258 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate considered the matter in detail and found that the materials placed by the prosecution would satisfy the prosecution under Sec.304-A IPC against the accused/ petitioner. Therefore, the request for discharging the accused under Sec.258 of Cr.P.C. was turned down by the learned Magistrate. That order is challenged in this Crl.M.C.No.861/2006.
5. As stated earlier, in the light of the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, an Apex Body was constituted. A report of that State Level Apex Body has been produced by the respondent/State. It is stated that the said Committee consisted of Dr.P.K.Jameela, the Director of Health Services, Sri.Asaf Ali, the Director General of Prosecution, Dr.V.Geetha, Director of Medical Education and Dr.P.N.Ramani, Addl. Director of Health Services (Vigilance). In the detailed report filed by the Apex Body, it is stated that up to delivery proper care was given. But Crl.M.C. No.861 of 2006 -: 4 :- during and after the delivery, the patient was attended by the petitioner herein in a negligent manner and as a result of the same, the patient died on her way to SAT Hospital. It was observed by the Committee :-
"On verifying the case records it is seen that Inj.Efcorlin, Inj.Dexona and Inj.Atropin were given to the patient which is usually given for shock which shows that the condition of the patient became very serious in the labour room itself. But that condition was not recorded anywhere in the case sheet. Even though RMO, the Superintendent and a Gynaecologist were available nearby, she neither called the help of doctors nor informed the seriousness of the situation to them. The treatment for this type of bleeding is suturing the lacerations only. The Post- mortem report showed that the patient died due to the bleeding from laceration of vagina and cervix. If the lacerations were sutured with the help of other doctors, the bleeding could have been arrested and the doctor could have referred the patient in a stable condition and death could have been prevented. But she simply put a pressure pack into the Vagina and referred the patient in a serious condition with bleeding and she entrusted the reference to the duty doctor and a senior nurse. But it was her duty to refer the patient with all assistance and supervision to a higher centre.
The expert opinion obtained from the Apex Body Crl.M.C. No.861 of 2006 -: 5 :- witness No.2 Prof.Y.Sujatha also pointed out that the delivery was normal but there is no evidence that any other Gynaecologists or other doctors from the same hospital were called for help during the suturing of the patient. If done so, the doctor could have sutured the bleeding patient and thus the bleeding could have been reduced to some extent before transferring to SAT Hospital, and thereby the death could have been averted. The appellant sought the following reliefs a. To set aside the decision taken dated, 23/07/2001.
b. To recall the final report field by the DYSP on 15/11/2001.
c. To direct the Public Prosecutor to withdraw C.C No.425/2002 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara.
After thoughtful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Apex Body the following points were considered by the Apex Body
1. Whether the Apex Body has jurisdiction to consider the reliefs (b) and (c)
2. Whether the appellant was criminally negligent in attending the case of Sreeja Findings Point No.1 It is relevant to note that the reliefs (b) and (c) are beyond the power of Apex Body as they are not legally sustainable and hence answered against the appellant.
Crl.M.C. No.861 of 2006 -: 6 :- Point No.2 As per the expert opinion obtained from
Prof.Y.Sujatha even though the delivery was normal, the bleeding due to vaginal and cervical tears were not attended properly and there is no evidence that any other Gynaecologists or other doctors from the same hospital were called for help during the suturing of the patient. If done so, the doctor could have sutured the bleeding patient and thus the bleeding could have been reduced to some extent before transferring to SAT Hospital, and thereby the death could have been averted.
For the aforesaid reason it is found that Dr.Kamala Rajaram is found criminally negligent in providing proper treatment to Sreeja during the complications developed following delivery.
Hence the Apex Body unanimously decided to summarily reject the appeal preferred before it by Dr.Kamala Rajaram."
6. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the light of the unanimous decision of the Apex Body, which confirmed the District Panel Report the petitioner has to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit Crl.M.C. No.861 of 2006 -: 7 :- that challenging the report dated 4.8.2012, the petitioner has filed a writ petition as W.P.(C)No.20853/2012. But the request made by the learned counsel that this Crl.M.C. has to be kept pending till the disposal of that writ petition cannot be sustained. This Crl.M.C. is directed only against Annexure A4 order as per which the learned Magistrate declined to discharge the accused under Sec.258 Cr.P.C. The petitioner can advance all her contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
With the observations as mentioned above, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Jvt