Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 663
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
S. RAVI KUMAR, J.
Dr. P. Malathi – Petitioner
Versus
The States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and another – Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 5056 & 5077 OF 2014
Decided on: 25-6-2014
Advocate appeared:
For the petitioner: Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy
For the respondents: Public Prosecutor, Sri N.Naveen Kumar
Mere negligence is not sufficient and to fasten criminal liability, gross negligence and high recklessness on part of the doctors is required.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 482-Medical negligence-Death of patient-Mere negligence is not sufficient and to fasten criminal liability, gross negligence and high recklessness on part of the doctors is required-There is no material showing gross negligence or recklessness on the part of these two petitioners for the death of deceased and the ingredients of Section 304-A I.P.C. are not at all attracted, against the petitioners-There is absolutely no material to show that there was any falsifying of hospital record to screen away the offences---Mere suspicion or allegation however strong they may cannot be taken into consideration without any supporting material---Even otherwise those allegations reflects on the Nursing Home and its residential doctors, but not on petitioners-This is a fit case to exercise powers of court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to prevent abuse of process of court and also to save precious time of court-Criminal proceedings quashed.
Result-Criminal petitions allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The court emphasized that mere negligence is insufficient to establish criminal liability; instead, gross negligence and high recklessness on the part of the doctors are required to attract criminal charges (!) .
-
The absence of material evidence showing gross negligence or recklessness leads to the conclusion that the ingredients necessary for criminal liability under the relevant section are not satisfied (!) .
-
The medical opinions and findings of professional bodies, such as the Medical Council of Andhra Pradesh and the Medical Council of India, concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners, and the death was due to a rare complication, which further supports the decision to quash the proceedings (!) .
-
The lack of a post-mortem examination limits the ability to definitively determine the cause of death, and the opinions expressed are based solely on the case sheet, which diminishes the strength of the allegations (!) .
-
The court found that the allegations of falsifying hospital records or screening offences lack supporting material, and suspicion or strong allegations alone do not justify criminal proceedings without substantive evidence (!) .
-
The proceedings were deemed an abuse of process, as there was no evidence of gross negligence or recklessness, and continuing the criminal trial would be unjust and a waste of judicial resources (!) .
-
The exercise of inherent jurisdiction under the relevant legal provision is justified to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, especially when the material relied upon by the petitioners is sound, reasonable, and would rule out the assertions in the complaint (!) .
-
The court noted that the remedy available through statutory revision or appeal processes should be pursued, but in cases where no such remedy effectively addresses the issues, the inherent powers can be invoked to quash proceedings (!) (!) .
-
The court clarified that the standard of proof in criminal cases is higher than in civil cases, and evidence of negligence that suffices in civil liability may not be enough for criminal conviction, particularly when the negligence is not gross or reckless (!) (!) .
-
The final decision was to allow the criminal petitions and quash the proceedings against the petitioners, as there was no material to establish gross negligence or recklessness, and continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process and cause unnecessary hardship (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of establishing gross negligence or recklessness for criminal liability in medical cases and underscore the role of professional and judicial assessments in determining the legitimacy of criminal proceedings against medical practitioners.
These two Criminal Petitions are filed by two accused i.e., A.1 an A.3 in C.C.No.171 of 2014 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally to quash the proceedings against them.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for A.1 submitted that A.1 has not committed any offence and she is falsely implicated for obvious and oblique reasons and that there is no negligence on her part in treating the deceased i.e., daughter of second respondent. He further submitted that second respondent along with his wife and husband of the deceased filed Consumer Dispute No.40 of 2003 before A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad against the first accused and other accused by making the same allegation of medical negligence that were mentioned in the complaint and claimed compensation of Rs.One Crore with interest at 24% p.a., and the same was opposed and defended by the petitioners and other accused and the Honourable State Commission by an order dated 29-8-2008 dismissed the said application holding that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioners herein and questioning the said order, the complainant and others have filed appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same is pending. He further submitted that husband of deceased made a complaint against the revision petitioners and others to A.P. Medical Council by making similar allegations of medical negligence and after thorough enquiry, the Ethical and Malpractices Committee of A.P. Medical Council held that there is no negligence on the part of doctors including these two petitioners and that the deceased died due to rare complication of Amniotic Fluid Embolism and the same was approved by general body of A.P. Medical Council and the same was intimated to the husband of the deceased through letter dated 11-2-2004. He further submitted that questioning the said order of A.P. Medical Council of India, husband of deceased filed an appeal before Medical Council of India under Regulations 8, 7 & 8.8 of Professional Conduct (Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2004. He further submitted that after obtaining opinion of the experts of concerned branch of medicine of well reputed and prestigious institutions/Hospitals and after considering all the aspects of the matter, the Ethics Committee of Medical Council of India while holding that negligence could not be substantiated against A.1 observed that A.1 may be cautioned to be very careful in future in treating serious patients. The Executive Committee of Medical Council of India in its meeting dated 24-4-2006 accepted the recommendation of Ethics Committee. But the general body of Medical Council of India in its meeting on 10-3-2007 while approving the recommendations of executive committee observed that as negligence could not be substantiated against A.1, decided to remove that part of warning recommended by Ethics Committee and thus A.P. Medical Council and Medical Council of India, which are the highest professional statutory bodies, have categorically held that there is no negligence on the part of A.1.
It is submitted by A.3 counsel that Medical Council of India allowed the appeal filed by husband of the deceased in respect of A.3 and imposed penalty of removal of A.3 from the Indian Medical Register for three months and challenging the same, he filed writ petition No.16305 of 2007 before this court and this court was pleased to set aside the order of the Medical Council of India passed against A.3 and directed Medical Council of India to consider the appeal filed by the husband of the deceased and decide it on merits in accordance with law by giving reasonable opportunity to A.3 and to comply Regulation 8.2. Challenging the said order in the writ petition, writ appeal is filed and the same is pending.
It is further submitted that not satisfied with the order of the Medical Council of India in respect of A.1, husband of the deceased approached government of India
