IMPORTANT POINT
The standard of care expected of a medical professional is the treatment which is expected of one with a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge. A medical practitioner would be liable only where the conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. The petitioners have preferred the instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.10/2021 registered at Police Station-Balco, Distt. Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304A/34 of IPC as also the subsequent final report and proceedings of Criminal Case No.1842/2022 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.1.2021 the complainant/respondent No.2 Manoj Kewat took his 06 years old child to District Hospital, Korba for treatment where petitioner No.1, who is a medical practitioner posted at District Hospital, Korba, treated the child and informed that he is suffering from Hernia and advised for sonography. On 7.1.2021 the complainant got sonography of the child done and on 8.1.2021 petitioner No.1 after going through the sonography report opined for surgery of the child. On the next day the complainant and his wife took the child to Ayushman Hospital, Korba where petitioner No.2 was present and surgery was performed by petitioners No.1 & 2 on 9.1.2021. However, after surgery the condition of the child started deteriorating, so he was taken to another hospital by his parents where he died. Since the surgery was performed without sufficient means in a negligent manner, the complainant lodged a report to this effect which led to registration of the impugned FIR. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed and Criminal Case No.1842/2022 is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal of the final report goes to show that no prima facie case of medical negligence is made out against the petitioners. There is not a single allegation against petitioner No.2, even then she has been arrayed as an accused. In fact, the complainant's son was suffering from congenital Hernia with hydrocoele of the cord. After proper examination, it was found that the pain occurs while straining (any stress, crying etc.) therefore, surgery under due consent of his parents was planned and consequences of the procedure and anesthesia were well explained to the parents. There might have been some anaesthetic drug interactions that the patient delayed recovering from anesthesia, hence another anaesthetic doctor was called to tide over the crisis and looking to the chaotic situation and on the insistence of the complainant, the patient/child was shifted to another nearby hospital with anaesthetic doctor where the unfortunate death of the child took place.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the FIR was lodged without obtaining any evidence of medical negligence. Apart from the FIR, the complainant also made complaint against the petitioners to CG Medical Council which was duly examined by a committee of expert doctors who did not find the petitioners guilty of any medical negligence. Copy of reports of the committee are filed as Annexure P/4 & P/5. He submits that Ayushman Surgical Nursing Home is duly registered under the Nursing Home Act and all kind of surgical cases are taken up there and it complies with all the norms of the government as per the Nursing Home Act. There is nothing to show any kind of medical negligence on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR as well as the consequential final report and criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents submits that the petitioners have failed to show any good ground for quashing the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings. The defence raised by the petitioners cannot be appreciated at this stage and the same can very well be raised during the course of trial. As per contents of the FIR, prima facie a case under Section 304A of IPC is made out against the petitioners. The investigation is already complete and the