1. The petitioners, Dr.Ritu Rawat, Medical Superintendent, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals and Dr.Rajeev Puri, Consultant ENT seek quashing of complaint in case No.495/1/2007 and orders dated 2nd March, 2007 and 17th March, 2007 passed in the said complaint case under Section 304(II)/304A/34 IPC.

2. The complainants are respondents No.1 and 2, grandfather and mother of Late Aditya Pal who was suffering from Recurrent Laryngeal Papillomatosis. He was undergoing treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital since November, 2004 and he underwent multiple laserisation of his papillomata on 25th November, 2004, 7th March, 2005, 22nd April, 2005 and 28th July, 2005. 3. The respondents contended in their complaint that on 3rd October, 2005 late Aditya Pal was again admitted in Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and during the procedure one of the pulses caused a luminescence in the airway leading to withdrawal of the procedure as the deceased suffered laser burns in the airway and he was shifted to ventilator support in Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). For the laser burns during the procedure, he was stabilized initially in O.T and then shifted to ICU for further management where he was put on mechanical ventilator and allegedly started on IV antibiotics and vigorous supportive care (inotopes and IV fluids).

4. The complainants have alleged that the child continued to remain under the treatment till 26th October, 2005 on which day he ultimately expired. It has been contended that the Trachestomy suction was found to be blood stained and volume was increasing. The complainants categorically asserted that the laser equipment operated by petitioner No.2 and maintained by petitioner No.1 and other accused, Indraprashtha Medical Corporation Limited and Anne Moncure, Managing Director, was unfit and defective. It was contended that its poor upkeep and maintenance along with deficient knowledge in running the machine, both at the time of procedure during its normal usage and after its mall- function during the course of operation, caused serious burn injuries. Some of the relevant allegations made in the complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners are as under:- “6. That the laser equipment operated by the accused No.4 and maintained by accused Nos.1-3 was unfit and defective. Its poor upkeep and maintenance along with deficient knowledge in running the machine both at the time of procedure during its normal usage and after its malfunction during the course of operation caused serious burn injuries leading to a hole in the traches of the child Aditya Pal which led to further secondary complication and his untimely death. 7. That the accused No.1 is a company running Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and Accused No.2 is its Managing Director whereas accused No.3 is its Medical Superintendent and both the accused No.2 and 3 are directly and vicariously responsible for the day to day affairs, maintenance and upkeep of the hospital, its equipments and further to ensure that the services being rendered are upto the mark and of good standard quality as per established medical norms. 8. That accused No.4 who performed the procedure was criminally negligent and incompetent to carry the operation of the given nature. Moreover, due to grossly negligent and inapt handling of the situation, the child was not treated properly and rather suffered serious injuries leading to his death at his hands.

9. That even after the serious burn injuries which resulted from culpable negligence at the hospital there was dismal failure to take necessary care warranted by the situation having arisen from lack of exercise of proper care and due precaution incumbent on the accused. The child was ignored, no proper treatment was offered and eventually the child expired due to the acts and omissions of the accused. In fact, the attending doctor lacked the kind of skill required for handling such spoilt cases as also requisite remedi