Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Shikha Gupta vs Devraj Mewada on 13 April, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 13th OF APRIL, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14607 of 2015
Between:-
DR. SHIKHA GUPTA W/O SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GRADUATE SAI COLONY BEHIND CIVIL HOSPITAL
CAMPUS ASHTA DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(By Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel)
AND
DEVRAJ MEWADA S/O SHRI RAI SINGH MEWADA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, VILL. SOOLKHEDA TEH.
AND P.S. ASHTA DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(By Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein for quash of proceedings initiated upon a private complaint filed by the respondent for an offence punishable under section 304-A IPC.
The facts in brief are as follows. On 17.12.2013 the deceased who was the wife of the respondent was admitted to the Government Civil Hospital at Astha for delivery. The petitioner herein was a doctor Incharge of the deceased. She is stated to have informed the respondent and the others accompanying the patient that it would be a normal delivery. Thereafter, the delivery took place and a male child was born which was handed over to the respondent. However, as per the complaint, the petitioner herein was allegedly in a highly distressed state and had prohibited everyone from entering the labour room saying that there were complications of postpartum haemorrhage (hereinafter referred to as "PPH") and that the treatment was being administered to the deceased. She is also alleged to have locked the room from outside and thereafter, with the help of a senior doctor, 2 the respondent is stated to have opened the room and found the deceased on the table in a bloodied condition having convulsions. No sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. has been sought in this case before taking up cognizance. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a doctor working in a Government Civil Hospital.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to Annexure P/16, which is a report of the Committee of five doctors who had gone through the case of the deceased and thereafter held that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner herein. it is also relevant to point out here that when the complication arose, the deceased was referred to the Government hospital for women i.e. Sultania Zanana Hospital, Bhopal, but instead of taking the deceased there, the respondent and his relations took the deceased to the Chirayu Medical Hospital, Bhopal, where she passed away eight days later on 25.12.2013. Annexure P/17 is the report of the SDO(P) Astha who has also given a clean chit to the petitioner and has observed in his report that after going through the report of the experts and the post-mortem report, the cause of death is given as syncope due to hepatic failure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition suffered by the deceased though rare, does occur. He further submits that a case of PPH, though treatable, is an emergency situation and considered extremely dangerous, which can result in the death of the patient. He has further submitted that both the committee of five doctors and the enquiry by the police has exonerated the petitioner of any negligent conduct.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while opposing the petition, has submitted that a prima facie case is made out by the allegations in the complaint filed before the Magistrate and also the statement recorded by the Magistrate of the complainant and the other witnesses. However, learned counsel for the respondent does not state that from the side of the respondent any expert's opinion was sought, which would have disclosed a case, not merely of negligence but of gross negligence, which is the standard of negligence required to bring an act of a doctor on account of which a patient dies, be prosecuted under section 304-A IPC. The law is well-settled in this issue and does not require reiteration.
3This case is also squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Dr. B. C. Jain v. Maulana Saleem passed on 28.2.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.965/2008 wherein this court, after having referred and considered various judgments of the Supreme Court, including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another (2006) 6 SCC1, Manorama Tiwari and others v. Surendra Nath Rai (2016) 1 SCC 594, Amal Kumar Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh and another (2016) 6 SCC 734 and A. S. V. Narayana Rao v. Ratnamala and another (2013) 10 SCC 741 in which the Supreme Court held that mere negligence, which could make the doctor liable under civil law or the consumer law, was inadequate to prosecute the doctor under section 304-A IPC, laid down eight guidelines in paragraph no.14 of the judgment which was required to be followed where a doctor, more specifically a Government doctor, could be tried for an offence under section 304-A IPC either arising from an FIR or from a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C.
Under the circumstances, in view of what has been argued, discussed and considered by this court herein above, the petition is allowed. Further proceedings against the petitioner in RT No.648/2015 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Astha, shall stand quashed.
With the above, this petition is finally disposed of.
ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ps PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA 2022.04.18 10:37:07 +05'30'