O R D E R

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings C.C. 117 of 2004 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The allegations, in the charge sheet filed in C.C.117 of 2004, under Section 304-A I.P.C. in Crime No.29 of 2002 of Panjagutta Police Station, are that the deceased Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy underwent an ear operation on 8.1.2002 at Dr. G.V. Rao ENT Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad and that the petitioner-accused Dr. G.V.Rao had, himself, administered anesthesia negligently, without seeking the assistance of an anesthetist, resulting in complications and the death of the patient on 9.1.2002 while undergoing treatment.

3. On 9.1.2002 at 21.30 hours, the complainant (L. W .1) lodged a complaint stating that his brother-in-law Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy aged 27 years, a Software Engineer in Baan Info Systems India limited, was suffering from ear problem for the last couple of months, that he was admitted in Dr. G.V. Rao ENT Hospital, Panjagutta on 7.1.2002 for surgery and that Dr. G.V.Rao had performed surgery on the deceased on 8.1.2002. The complainant had alleged that Dr. G.V. Rao had shifted the deceased to S.V.R. Super Specialty Hospital, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad where the doctors declared the patient brought dead. The complainant alleged that the surgery performed on the deceased was minor, that the patient was young and healthy and that the complainant suspected that the deceased had died due to the negligence of the doctor. L.W.14 registered a case, in Cr.No.29 of 2002 under Section 304 -A I.P.C, and entrusted investigation to L.W. 15.

4. During the course of investigation, the presence of L.Ws.1 to 7 was secured, they were examined and their detailed statements recorded. L.W.1, the complainant, corroborated the contents of the F.I.R. L.W.2, the younger brother of the deceased stated that the deceased was suffering with ear problem, having undergone treatment under the accused - Dr. G.V. Rao, that the deceased was admitted in the hospital for undergoing surgery by the accused. L.W.3, father of the deceased, corroborated the version of L.W.2. L.Ws.4 and 5, friends of L.W.2 and who were present along with L.W.2 at the hospital after the surgery was performed, corroborated the version of L.W.2. L.W.6, the nurse working under the accused, and L.W.7, the Lab Technician of Sai Diagnostic Centre, stated about the blood test of the deceased. L.W.15 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 10.1.2002, in the presence of L.Ws.9 and 10 mediators, at the Gandhi Hospital Mortuary. He got the dead body photographed and subjected the dead body to postmortem examination. L.W. 12 conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined that the cause of death was due to “pulmonary oedema and cerebral oedema”. Since the opinion of L.W.12 involved medical terminology, L.W.16 sought the expert opinion, of the Professor & Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, to ascertain as to who was responsible for the death of the deceased since the complainant and other witnesses had alleged that the deceased had died due to the negligence of doctor who had performed operation on the deceased. P.W.13, the Professor & Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, basing on the available medical records, postmortem report etc., opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to complications of anesthesia administered by the surgeon. In his opinion, L.W. 13 stated that E.C.G Test, X-ray skull and scanning were done, that the surgeon himself had administered anesthesia, that post operative complications suffered by the patient were convulsions due to delayed action of local anesthesia on the brain leading to hypoxia and death, that the complications were avoidable and treatable if a qualified anesthetist was available for administering the local anesthesia and monitoring post operative care etc. L.W.16 also examined L.W.8, who, on the request of