Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the courts
below have taken cognizance of the criminal complaint in absence
of opinion of medical expert. The courts below have failed to
consider the law laid down in the cases of Jacob Mathew vs. State
of Punjab and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180 and
Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, reported in AIR 2009 SC
2049 and erroneously passed the impugned orders. The
respondent No.1, at any point of time, has not disclosed to the
petitioner that he has infection in both of his eyes. Though there
are material contradictions and variance in the allegations made in
the complaint and the statement recorded during verification and
though this itself is sufficient to show that the complaint is filed
with a sole motive to cause harassment and mental torture to the
petitioner, the courts below have not considered these material
aspects and passed the impugned orders. "Dexamethasone" drug is
not prohibited or banned in medical science. The observations of
the courts below are without any experts evidence and the same
are hypothetical and based on assumptions and presumptions.
There is also delay in filing the complaint which is not satisfactorily
explained by respondent No.1. Learned counsel submits that even if
the allegations in the complaint are considered as it is, the
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 00:30:06 :::
CriWP-894-2017
-6-
ingredients of Section 284 of I.P.C. are not attracted against the
petitioner. In absence of report of expert committee to be formed
in view of the guidelines laid down in the Government Resolution
dated 26.3.2010, the trial court has entertained the complaint and
passed the impugned order. Learned counsel therefore, submits
that the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner cannot be
termed as criminal negligence.
Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi on 12 August, 2002
(a) the law laid down in paragraph 37 of Indian Medical
Association,
Indian Medical Association vs V.P. Shantha & Ors on 13 November, 1995
In the case of V. Kishan Rao (supra), relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court, by referring the case
of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha [(1995) 6 SCC
651], and further referring the case of J.J. Merchant (Dr.) vs.
Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635], has made the following
observations in para 53 of the judgment:
Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq on 17 February, 2009
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the courts
below have taken cognizance of the criminal complaint in absence
of opinion of medical expert. The courts below have failed to
consider the law laid down in the cases of Jacob Mathew vs. State
of Punjab and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180 and
Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, reported in AIR 2009 SC
2049 and erroneously passed the impugned orders. The
respondent No.1, at any point of time, has not disclosed to the
petitioner that he has infection in both of his eyes. Though there
are material contradictions and variance in the allegations made in
the complaint and the statement recorded during verification and
though this itself is sufficient to show that the complaint is filed
with a sole motive to cause harassment and mental torture to the
petitioner, the courts below have not considered these material
aspects and passed the impugned orders. "Dexamethasone" drug is
not prohibited or banned in medical science. The observations of
the courts below are without any experts evidence and the same
are hypothetical and based on assumptions and presumptions.
There is also delay in filing the complaint which is not satisfactorily
explained by respondent No.1. Learned counsel submits that even if
the allegations in the complaint are considered as it is, the
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 00:30:06 :::
CriWP-894-2017
-6-
ingredients of Section 284 of I.P.C. are not attracted against the
petitioner. In absence of report of expert committee to be formed
in view of the guidelines laid down in the Government Resolution
dated 26.3.2010, the trial court has entertained the complaint and
passed the impugned order. Learned counsel therefore, submits
that the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner cannot be
termed as criminal negligence.
V. Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr on 8 March, 2010
In the case of V. Kishan Rao (supra), relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court, by referring the case
of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha [(1995) 6 SCC
651], and further referring the case of J.J. Merchant (Dr.) vs.
Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635], has made the following
observations in para 53 of the judgment:
1