Dr. Lakshmanan Prakash VS State

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 (4) Crimes 404
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Dr. Lakshmanan Prakash - Petitioner
versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 22152 of 1998 and
Crl. M.P. No. 10727 of 1998
Decided on 15-3-1999
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.R. Elango, Advocate.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304A - Surgical operation involving 3 doctors resulting in death of patient - Criminal negligence and civil negligence distinguished Standard of negligence to be rated in terms of circumstances - Material collected by prosecution in this case amount to negligence in civil law, not culpable negligence under criminal law.
       Held: The facts and the materials collected by the prosecution in this, case may amount to negligence in civil law, but not culpable negligence under criminal law. For civil liability, the simple lack of care is enough. But, in criminal law, a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved. In civil suit, it is sufficient to prove neglect of duty by consideration of the probabilities of the case. But, in criminal law, it is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt the negligent act of the accused. (Para 22)
       Further held: To impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, I.P.C., it is necessary that the death would be direct result of a negligent act of the accused, and that act, must be proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans and it is not enough that it may have the causa sine qua non. There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the negligent act of the accused. (Para 23)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Material on record not sufficient to fix criminal liability with reference to criminal negligence against petitioner - Benefit accrues to A-2 would also be applicable to A-3 - Proceedings qua them quashed-Quashing of proceedings would not preclude deceased father to file a claim for damages in proper Forum under civil law on the basis of negligence.
       Held: Therefore, under these circumstances, the materials on record collected by the respondent-police placed before the Trial Court are, in my View, would not be sufficient to fix the criminal liability with reference to the criminal negligence as against the petitioner (A3). Consequently, the proceedings as against the petitioner (A3) are liable to be quashed. (Para 32)
       Similarly, in my view, Dr. Rajagopal (A2) under whose supervision, A3 Dr. Prakash commenced operation also, would stand in the same footing and consequently, the proceedings as against A2 are also to be quashed. Though A2 has not filed any application, the benefit accrues to A3 would also be applicable to A2. Therefore, the proceedings, as indicated earlier, as against A2 and A3 are hereby quashed. (Para 33)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 - Criminal negligence - Failure of Anasthetist (A-1) to check up during pre-operative anaesthesia as to whether the patient would withstand 3 ml. local anaesthesia administer through spinal cord may amount to criminal negligence warranting A-1 facing the proceedings under Section 304-A, I.P.C.
       Held: The part played by Al Dr. Parthasarathy, Anaesthetist by having failed to check up during the preoperative anaesthesia test as to whether the patient would withstand 3 ml. local anaesthesia drug which was administered through spinal cord to the patient especially when he had sustained injuries both on the head and leg may amount to criminal negligence which would warrant Al facing the proceeding under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code. (Para 30)
       Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

M. Karpagavinayagam, J. - Dr. L. Prakash, seeking to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 3711 of 1998 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C, has approached this Court with this application filed under Section 482. Cr. P.C.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as A3 in this case. The accusation contained in the charge sheet against Al to A3 is as follows:

"On 24-5-1997 at about 12.00 hours at Padmini Nursing Home situated at Pachayappas College Hostel Road Chennai. Dr. Parthasarathy (Al). Dr. Rajagopal (A2) and Dr. L. Prakash (A3) acted in a rash and negligent manner in conducting the operation on the person by name Jayakumar for his fractured injuries sustained on his right leg in a road accident the first accused Dr. Parthasarathy being the Anaesthetist the second accused Dr. Rajagopal and the third accused Dr. L. Prakash being in charge of the operation fixed for the patient, during which process the second accused abruptly left the operation theatre on same reason for a short duration leaving the third accused and after the administration of anaesthesia by A1, as a result of which the patient died of acute respiratory failure. Therefore, all the three doctors being negligent in their duties are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.

3. Mr. Karuppan the Counsel for the petitioner (A3) would mainly contend that the charge as against the petitioner under Section 304-A I.P.C. is not made out since he was in no way connected with the cause of death, which is said to have caused complications that had arisen due to spinal anaesthesia administered by Dr. Parthasarathy (Al) who is an Anaesthetist. He would also submit that the post-mortem report did not specify that the cause of death was due to any negligence on the part of anyone involved in the operation except for stating that the cause of death was due to lung shock. He would also point out that the second opinion which was sought from Dr. Celia, Head of the Department of Forensic Sciences would certify that the cause of death was due to acute respiratory failure - a sequel to spinal anaesthesia administration and that therefore, the person answerable to the charge is only A1, the anaesthetist and the petitioner (A3) could not be charged of contributing the said Act. According to the Counsel the petitioner could not be attributed with any sort of negligence as there are no materials to show that he was in any way responsible for the death of the deceased.

4. I have heard Mr. Elango, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

5. A perusal of the records would give the following details:

(a) One Jayakumar aged about 24 years is a student of III year B.E. in B.M.S. Engineering College, Bangalore. He met with a road accident on 14-5-1997, due to which he sustained injuries on his hand, leg and head. Initially he took treatment at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. Since his father Sethuraman and his family are residing at Madras, the said Jayakumar was brought to Madras for further treatment. On 16-5-1997 the patient was taken to Dr. Rajagopalan (A2), Ortho Surgeon, who is the family doctor of the said Sethuraman, at his Clinic. who in turn got the patient admitted in the Padmini Nursing Home on the same day. Thereupon, Dr. Rajagopalan (A2) and his son-in-law Dr. L. Prakash (A3) the petitioner, both being the Or - the Surgeons and visiting consultants of Padmini Nursing Home attended over the patient Jayakumar and commenced the treatment. On 23-5- 1997 both the Doctors decided to conduct surgical operation on the right leg of the patient for compound fracture. They had also promised the father of the patient that it was a minor operation in which they have planned to adopt and carry out a foreign method of treatment and that there was nothing to worry about.

(b) On 24-5-1997 at 8.30 a.m. the patient was taken to operation theatre Dr. Rajagopalan and Dr. Prakash, Ortho Surgeons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday