IMPORTANT POINT
Even if it is presumed that the Members of the Committee had side-tracked and deliberately ignored the report of the experts helping the delinquent doctors to go scot-free, it does not make out any criminal offence said to have been committed by these appellants under the provisions of IPC.

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the counsel for the parties finally, with their consent, as the matter was fixed for final arguments by this Court.

3. The issue that is involved in the present appeal does not require stating of the facts in detail. We would, however, recapitulate those facts which are absolutely essential for deciding this matter.

4. Wife of respondent No. 1 was under the medical treatment of Dr. B. Halder, Dr. Abani Roychowdhury and Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee (hereinafter referred to as delinquent doctors). She, however, could not survive. Her husband-respondent No. 1 was not satisfied with the manner in which medical treatment was given by the aforesaid doctors, as according to him, their negligence in performance of their duties as doctors led to the death of his wife. He, therefore, lodged a written complaint with the West Bengal Medical Council against those three doctors in the year 1999 alleging negligence and maltreatment of his wife by the said three medical practitioners. On receiving the complaint, the Medical Council referred the same to the Penal and Ethical Cases Committee No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Inquiry Committee') with instructions to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made in the said complaint. This Committee comprised five doctors (other appellants were the members of the West Bengal Medical Council).

5. It appears that this Inquiry Committee took opinion of certain experts in their field and the opinion of the said experts was in favour of the complainant. Notwithstanding the same, the Inquiry Committee submitted its report giving findings that the delinquent doctors were not at fault. On the basis of that report, they were exonerated by the West Bengal Medical Council. However, it may be mentioned that the complainant had also initiated proceedings against the delinquent doctors before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging deficiency in service against several medical practitioners including the said three delinquent doctors. Though NCDRC rejected the complaint, in the appeal filed against the orders of the NCDRC, this Court held the said delinquent doctors guilty of negligence but at the same time, it was found that their negligence was not of criminal nature but of civil consequence and, therefore, awarded damages in favour of the complainant and against the delinquent doctors. This judgment is reported as 'Molay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee' [2009 (9) SCC 221].

6. It is clear from the above that insofar as the three delinquent doctors were concerned, it has been finally held that they acted with negligence while according medical treatment to the wife of the complainant.

7. The complainant, after the aforesaid judgment of this Court, filed criminal complaint against the members of the Inquiry Committee of West Bengal Medical Council including the appellants herein alleging that they have committed offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code(IPC). The complaint is founded on the allegations that even when there were four reports of four different medical experts to the effect that delinquent doctors were guilty of professional misconduct as they had acted with negligence while giving medical treatment to the wife of the complainant, these accused persons entered into conspiracy to save the delinquent doctors. On this basis, culpability which is attributed to these appellants can be traced in paragraph 23 of the complaint which reads as under:

“23. That on the backdrop of what has been canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is most palpable and glaring that the accused persons had entered into a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy amongst themselves to screen the offenders and in pursuance to that, as overt acts, the accused persons knowing fully well that the offending doctors had committed the offence of medical negligence and thereby caused death of the wife of the petitioner, deliberately concealed and with