Medical negligence accusations must be substantiated by clear evidence; mere allegations, without expert consensus on negligence, are insufficient for criminal liability.

ORDER :

Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

1. By the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

“It is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 1342/23, chargesheet (Annexure P-1) for offence u/s 304A of IPC registered by PS- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, C.G which is a gross abuse of process of law, illegal and against the provision of law and thus, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to set-aside the consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 2035/2024 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, CG in the interest of justice.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the respondent no. 2 is the father of deceased namely; Goldy Chhabra alias Gurveen Singh Chhabra and he lodged a report alleging, inter alia, therein that on 25/12/2016 at about 8.45 a.m. the deceased had visited the Apollo Hospital Bilaspur for medical treatment and after conducting preliminary examination, he was hospitalized and was completely normal, as he was having regular conversation with his family members. Then the petitioners herein started medically treating the deceased and in that process administered various injection, tablets, ointment etc. etc. and then all of a sudden, the team of doctors did advised the respondent No.2 and his family members that the deceased needs Intensive Care Unit Treatment (for short, "ICU") and was shifted to ICU. Finally on 26/12/2016, the team of doctors (petitioners herein) who were medically treating the son of the respondent No.2 had informed the respondent No.2 and his family members that Goldy Chhabra @ Gurveen Singh Chhabra is no more and was declared dead. The respondent No.2/complainant levelled an allegation that on account of negligence committed by the petitioners, the deceased died.

3. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are Doctors by profession. He submits that on 25.12.2016 one Goldi was admitted in Apollo Hospital with critical condition, he was on ventilator and passed away on 26.12.2016 due to multiple organ failure. His autopsy was done on 27.12.2016 and viscera was preserved for chemical examination which was sent in the year 2019. However, the report of the chemical examination does not indicate any residual of sulphas. It is next submitted that a writ petition was filed in the year 2019 by respondent No.2 herein stating that procedure under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. regarding inquest was not followed in proper perspective, therefore, a Board was constituted in CIMS, Bilaspur which opined that prima facie there seems to be nothing against the petitioners but since CIMS do not have the facility of Cardiology, the matter was referred to the State Medical Board in the year 2023. The State Medical Board, which consists of five medical experts including cardiologist, opined that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioners. However, in order to overreach the said report, one report was sought from the medico-le