SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. Karnik, J.
Dilip Amonkar - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 272 of 2023-F
Decided On : 26-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
S.D. Lotlikar, Advocate, C. Padgaonkar, Advocate, T. Sequeira, Advocate, S. Keny, Advocate, P. Faldessai, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 258 - IPC - Section 304A - Medical negligence - The petitioner challenged a revisional order rejecting his plea for dismissal of criminal charges related to alleged negligence in surgery. The court sets aside the prior orders, emphasizing that there was insufficient evidence of gross negligence to proceed with criminal charges. (Paras 9, 10, 31)

(B) Criminal Negligence - Definition and Standards - For a doctor to be criminally liable under Section 304A, a grave standard of carelessness or recklessness must be proven, beyond mere civil liability. The court reaffirms that an error in judgment does not equate to criminal negligence. (Paras 20-22)

Facts of the case:
The accused performed an appendectomy on a minor patient, who developed complications post-operatively and later died. Allegations of negligence led to criminal charges being filed against the accused after numerous evaluations and inquiries. (Paras 3, 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The evidence presented did not establish gross negligence on the accused's part. The reported complications were found to be unrelated to the appellant's initial surgery, with procedural adherence confirmed by expert opinion from the Goa Medical Council. (Paras 29-31)

Issues: The court examined whether sufficient grounds existed to continue the proceedings against the accused based on the evidence collected up to that point. (Paras 10, 31)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that for criminal liability to be invoked, the accused's actions must demonstrate such a high degree of negligence that it amounts to criminal recklessness. The absence of evidence showing this severity warranted halting the trial proceedings. (Paras 20, 31)

Result: Writ petition allowed, and criminal proceedings against the petitioner were stopped.

Table of Content
1. factual background of medical negligence case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court's findings on evidence of negligence. (Para 8 , 9)
3. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 10 , 11)
4. standards of medical negligence liability. (Para 13 , 14 , 20)
5. ruling to conclude the trial under section 258 cr.p.c. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dtd. 20/1/2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao in Criminal Revision Application No. 59 of 2022. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision fled by the petitioner/accused against the order passed by the trial Court on an application made by the accused under Sec. 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short).

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vascoda-Gama, by the order dtd. 13/4/2022 kept the application for fnal disposal after examination of the material witnesses of the prosecution. It is against this order that the Criminal Revision Application was fled before the learned Sessions Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are as under:-

The petitioner, a registered medical practitioner is the accused no.1. That on 1/7/2010, a girl aged 17 years was admitted at the Pai Hospital, Vasco complaining severe abdomen pain. Dr. S. R. Pai was the director and chairperson of the Pai Hospital at Vasco-da-Gama. Since this was an emergency case, the petitioner went to Pai hospital in the early morning of 3/7/2010 and upon clinically examining the patient and fnding that she was having acute appendicitis, conducted a surgical operation, in the course of which the appendix was removed.

4. On 5/7/2010, the patient was discharged from the hospital. On 9/7/2010, the patient was readmitted by her mother at Pai Hospital when she was treated by Dr. Shantaram Surme (accused no.2) and Dr. Shridhar Pai. Since she was showing signs of distress, the petitioner was called. The petitioner suggested that she be immediately shifted and admitted to Goa Medical College Hospital ("GMCH" for short). The patient came to be shifted and admitted in the GMCH at 7.30 p.m on 10/7/2010. The patient was treated in the unit of GMCH of which Dr. Patil was in charge as the unit head. The patient was operated on 11/7/2010 and was thereafter admitted to ward no.106. The patient developed complications on 15/7/2010 when she was still at GMCH. Unfortunately, the patient died on 29/7/2010 at the GMCH. The case pertaining to her death was registered as Medico-legal case on 29/7/2010 on the recommendation of the petitioner in his capacity as the head of the surgery department of GMCH which was registered at Vasco Police Station as an unnatural death under Sec. 174 of the Cr.P.C. The post-mortem was conducted on 30/7/2010.

5. The victim's sister, in her complaint dtd. 2/8/2010 alleged that the death was on account of medical negligence. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Goa conducted an inquiry. A committee was asked to inquire into the incident of death. The statements of the petitioner and other doctors came to be recorded. The Report submitted by the committee was produced by the victim's father before the police. A case was registered as crime no. 193/2011 against the petitioner as accused no.1 and against accused nos.2 and 3 under Sec. 304, 468, 471, 201 read with 34 of the IPC. The chargesheet came to be fled in the Children's Court for the State of Goa which was registered as Special Case No. 63/2012.

6. Criminal Writ Petition fled by the petitioner in this Court was partly allowed. This Court quashed and set aside the applicability of the provisions of Sec. 8(2) read with Sec. 2(m) (ii) of the CHILDREN ACT of 2003. Thereafter the chargesheet was transferred to the Sessions Court, South Goa at Margao and re-numbered as Sessions Case No. 40/2006. The arguments before charge were heard on 1/6/2017. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, at Margao quashed and set aside the applicability of Ss. 304, 468, 471, and 201 o

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top