Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In a recent case before it, the Apex Court set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a Doctor. The claims against the doctor were such that the complainant was pressurised to deliver the baby at the complainant's wife clinic. An allegation of improper administration of anesthetic injunction ensued that allegedly resulted into the death of new born soon after delivery. The magistrate initially took cogniznce of the complaint, which was later set aside by the District Court. However, the High Court went on to restore the orignal order of the magistrate.
The contentions made before the Apex Court were such that the Doctor had only administered anesthetia with an object to facilitate a caesarian deivery. It was further cclarified that loss of consciousness is in fact the natural consequence after administration of anesthesia. This under no circumstances can tantamount to negligence on part of the doctor.
The the criminal proceedings were set aside, the bench comprising of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee observed:
"We are of the opinion that loss of consciousness upon administration of anesthesia is but a natural consequence. The complainant himself admits that his wife then regained consciousness at the hospital at Kishangarh. Apparently, there was no fault on part of the appellant. There is no allegation or material annexed to the complaint that the appellant was not a qualified anesthetist or that the anesthesia was administered to the patient in a negligent manner or in improper dosage. The fact that the patient developed complications because of her own bodily infirmity is evident from the fact that a pacemaker had to be installed at the government hospital at Ajmer after which she delivered the child on 26.10.2001. Unfortunately the child did not survive and expired at the hospital at Ajmer on 14.11.2001, after more than two weeks. We find it difficult to accept that the death of the child was a consequence of the anesthesia administered to the patient. There is no material whatsoever with regard to the post mortem report of the child with regard to the cause of death. It cannot be lost sight of that the child survived for more than two weeks. The appellant states that the child was born with the umbilical cord around his neck and response time after delivery was delayed by about seven minutes. There is no rebuttal to this fact. In absence of any prima facie material against the appellant, who is a doctor, it shall not be appropriate to subject him to the travails of a criminal prosecution on vague allegations."
While setting aside the order of cognizance it was observed that a complaint u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out prima facie against the Doctor. The precedent of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab was referred to, where it was held:
"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."
86540
103860
630
114
59824