Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2. The respondents, in Criminal Appeal (MD).No.594 of 2005, are, undoubtedly, licensed medical professionals, having M.B.B.S., Degrees to their credit. They were running a hospital under the name and style "Ajit & Ashok Hospital", at Christopher Colony, Keelaperuvilai in Kanyakumari District. It was a small hospital, having minimum required equipments for two doctors to practice. One Mr.Murugan, the husband of PW-1's sister, according to the prosecution, was suffering from abdominal pain in the year 1999. He consulted the respondents/doctors in their hospital. They prescribed certain medicines for the same. But, the abdominal pain did not recede. The accused advised him to go for a scan examination and X-ray. Accordingly, Mr.Murugan, [hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"] took X-ray, on 17.06.1999, at "Guru X-ray & Scan Centre", P.W.D.Road, Nagercoil, [vide EX-P3]. Similarly, he underwent abdomen ultrasound examination at Guru X-ray & Scan Centre, on 16.06.1999, [vide EX-P2]. On referring to the above reports, the first accused diagnosed that it was a case of hernia, which required surgery. But, Mr.Murugan did not agree for surgery and instead, he wanted only medicines. Therefore, the first accused prescribed certain medicines for the same.
21. Now, according to PW-1 and PW-2, on 08.10.2000, the deceased went to the hospital of the accused for treatment for abdominal pain. This is admitted by the accused. It is the further case of PW-1 and PW-2 that without obtaining their consent and without having sufficient expertise knowledge and also without having sufficient equipments, "surgery for hernia" was conducted, which was the cause for the death.
22. But, a perusal of the evidence of PW-7 would go to show that there was no indication that surgery for hernia had been conducted. He has further deposed that the surgery was only at the level of subcutaneous tissue, which means that it was only for lipoma. During cross-examination, he has further stated that there was no surgery conducted for hernia at all. In this regard, we have thoroughly gone through the evidence of PW-7 and the postmortem certificate. In this context, we may point out that the well recognized and well established procedure for "Herniorrhaphy" [hernia repair], i.e., surgery for hernia is as follows:-
26. In this case, according to PW-7, there was no opening of the sac at all. As we have pointed out already, to know whether the procedure was for hernia, the opening and closure of the sac is the only point of difference. The evidence of PW-7 clearly rules out the possibility of any surgery for hernia, as he did not notice opening of the "sac". Therefore, the evidences of PW-1 and PW- 2 that the accused conducted surgery for hernia is not true and the same are, therefore, liable to be rejected.
28. From the above categorical opinion of PW-7, it is crystal clear that there was no hernia and what was done by them was only a simple procedure of excision for removal of lipoma. Thus, the respondents have proved that the procedure conducted by them was only for removal of lipoma and it was not a surgery for hernia, as it is projected by the prosecution. PW-7 has further opined that the death was due to myocardial infarction. This opinion is based on the opinion of PW-12. PW-12, who was an Associate Professor in Pathology at Tirunelveli Medical College, after taking various tests, including histo- pathological test on the specimen of the heart, had confirmed that the deceased died of myocardial infarction, which is nothing but a sudden stoppage of the functioning of the heart, resulting in death. This is, in common parlance, called as "heart attack". Admittedly, the deceased, in this case, was suffering from heart disease, which was diagnosed even in the year 1999. The doctors have opined that the death of the deceased was a natural death due to heart attack.