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

2012 Supreme(Del) 1612

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.K. SHALI, J.
MEENAKSHI JAIN - Petitioner
Versus
STATE & ANR. - Respondents
CRL. M.C. No. 2504/2011
Decided On : 02.07.2012

Advocates Appeared:
Petitioner in person.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie medical opinion before registering an FIR against medical practitioners, as per the judgment in Jacob Mathew's case.

Headnote:

Medical Negligence - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - [Medical Negligence] - [Criminal Procedure Code] - [Section 154(1), Section 156(3), Section 200, Section 203, Section 204] - The court discussed the need for a prima facie medical opinion before registering an FIR against medical practitioners, as per the judgment in Jacob Mathew's case. The court found that the petitioner failed to produce prima facie evidence of medical negligence and therefore, the order directing the Delhi Medical Council to obtain a medical opinion was upheld.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought various reliefs including quashing an order, registering an FIR, and transferring the investigation related to the death of her father due to alleged medical negligence. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Magistrate directing the Delhi Medical Council to obtain a medical opinion.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to produce prima facie evidence of medical negligence and therefore, the order directing the Delhi Medical Council to obtain a medical opinion was upheld. The court also dismissed the petitioner's request to register an FIR and transfer the investigation.

Issues: The issues included the need for a prima facie medical opinion before registering an FIR against medical practitioners, the maintainability of the petitioner's requests, and the challenge to the order of the learned Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to produce prima facie evidence of medical negligence, and therefore, the order directing the Delhi Medical Council to obtain a medical opinion was upheld. The court also found that the petitioner's requests were not maintainable and dismissed them.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the order directing the Delhi Medical Council to obtain a medical opinion was upheld. The court also dismissed the petitioner's request to register an FIR and transfer the investigation.

JUDGMENT

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue appropriate order or direction to quash the order dated 28.7.2011 passed by the Court below being illegal, arbitrary and against all principles of criminal justice system showing non-application of mind;

(b) Issue appropriate order/directions to the respondent no.1 to register an FIR on the complaint dated 12.10.2010 of the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law or in the alternative issue appropriate order/directions to the Ld. MM to expeditiously decide the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner on merits in the light of the Medical Opinion dated 14.6.2010 of the Board of Doctors of Maulana Azad Medical College, duly constituted by Dean, MAMC on the directions of the Hon’ble State Commission and other material on record filed with the complaint;

(c) Issue appropriate order or directions to transfer the investigation to some other independent investigating agency;

(d) Issue appropriate order or directions to respondent no.2 to keep the complaint No. 780/10 of the petitioner pending before Disciplinary Committee in abeyance as requested;

(e) Pass any other and further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the father of the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer was admitted on 06.3.2009 in Apollo hospital. Unfortunately, he died on 01.4.2009. It is stated by the petitioner that on 16.2.2010, she had obtained an expert opinion by Dr. V.J. Anand, Consultant Surgeon and on the basis of the same, she filed a complaint on 19.3.2010 before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

3. On 14.6.2010, a Board of Doctors of Maulana Azad Medical College was constituted on the directions of the President of State Consumer Forum and it gave an opinion that the death of the deceased was caused because of the medical negligence. On 12.10.2010, the petitioner filed a complaint seeking prayer to register an FIR under Section 304-A IPC against the Apollo Hospital and its doctors for forging and tampering with the record and causing the death of her father by medical negligence. On 19.10.2010, a complaint of the medical negligence and professional misconduct against the said hospital and its doctors was made before the Delhi Medical Council. On 6th December, 2010, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi seeking directions to the police for registration of an FIR against the doctors of the Apollo hospital for causing death by negligence. On 28th July, 2011, the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate directing the Delhi Medical Council/respondent no.2 to expedite the hearing of the complaint bearing No. 780/2010 and file the Action Taken Report.

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order has challenged the same before this Court.

5. I have heard the petitioner in person, the learned counsel for the Delhi Medical Council as well as Ms. Indu Malhtora, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervener/ applicants.

6. The main contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had directed the Delhi Medical Council to furnish its opinion which is in fact trying to filling up the lacuna and save the doctors who have already been held to be prima facie negligent by the Medical Board constituted by the Consumer Forum in the performance of their duties, as a consequence of which, the death of the father of the petitioner has been caused. It was contended by the petitioner that admittedly, a medical board was duly constituted by the Dean of the Maulana Azad Medical College, in pursuance to the directions given by the President of the State Consumer Forum and thi
















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top