Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pratibha Rani, J.
Chander Prakash
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Another
CRL.Rev.P.487/2003
Decided On: 28th May, 2012
Medical Negligence - Criminal Liability - Section 304 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an accident resulting in the death of Shamshad. The deceased was initially taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital but was not admitted to the ICU due to the requirement of a deposit. He was later shifted to Sushruta Trauma Centre where he was declared 'brought dead'. The complainant alleged that the hospital's refusal to provide immediate treatment led to the death of Shamshad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the accused, as the hospital administrator, had knowledge that the denial of admission to the ICU would cause the death of Shamshad. The court concluded that the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC was groundless and quashed the order to charge the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused, as the hospital administrator, could be held criminally liable for the death of Shamshad due to the refusal of admission to the ICU.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no evidence to establish that the accused had the knowledge that the denial of admission to the ICU would cause the death of Shamshad, and therefore, the charge against the accused was groundless.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, quashed the order to charge the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, and discharged the accused.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. On 16.05.2001 there was an accident at T-point, Azad Pur, Delhi between a scooter and dumper bearing registration No.HR-38-C-4283 in which deceased Shamshad was seriously injured. He was rushed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital at Ashok Vihar and from there, shifted to Sushruta Trauma Centre. On arrival at Sushruta Trauma Centre, Shamshad aged about 30 years, was declared ‘brought dead’. A young life was lost but leaving behind a question as to who was responsible for this untimely death of Shamshad Crl.Rev.P. No.487/2003 i.e. whether he died after suffering fatal injuries in the accident or medical negligence or the inability of the relatives of the deceased to deposit the required amount in the hospital to start the treatment. The deceased has left behind many such questions unanswered.
2. The family was aggrieved that despite being rushed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, the precious life of Shamshad could not be saved. Finding himself unable to bear the loss and with a view to bring justice to the departed soul of his brother Shamshad, the complainant Sh. Azad Hussain Malik started a crusade. It has been pointed out during course of hearing by learned counsel for the complainant that only because of this case now 25% beds are reserved in every hospital for poor and needy persons and they are provided immediate medical treatment. In fact the efforts made by the complainant have not gone waste and though he may regret throughout his life that he could not save the life of his brother, at least due to his efforts many others have been benefited which must have given enough solace to the complainant in his crusade to get justice for his brother.
3. Crl.Rev.P No.487/2003 was filed by the Chairman, Managing Committee, Sunder Lal Jain Hospital (hereinafter referred to as accused) impugning the order dated 19.05.2003 vide which he was ordered to be charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.
4. On 11.07.2003. When the revision petition came up for hearing, this Court observed that :-
‘A very interesting question of law has cropped up in this petition. The question is whether the Administrator of the hospital can be charged for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC merely on the premise that he had issued instructions to the doctors and the staff regarding the admission of patients which entail the deposit of money as Crl.Rev.P. No.487/2003 Page 2of 27condition precedent. In the instant case, a patient was brought to the hospital and was not treated in the ICU because of instructions issued by him. The Trial court has deemed this act on the part of the accused as an act amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.’
5. Perusal of the record further reveals that on 04.03.2004 after hearing the accused, order was dictated but before affixing signature, this Court felt that matter needed further clarifications and arguments on interpretation of Section 299 IPC and its import on Section 304 IPC. Thereafter on 19.03.2004 on the application of complainant who is brother of the deceased, he was impleaded as a party. On 19.03.2004 the Court felt and ordered as under :-
‘Since an important question of law has arisen which needs further arguments and consideration, I admit Crl.Rev.P.487/2003.
Let this matter be listed in the category of ‘Regular Matters’ in the first five matters, in the week commencing 16th August, 2004.’
6. Before answering the question of law, it is necessary to refer to the facts leading to the registration of two FIRs in two different Police Stations pertaining to death of Shamshad. FIR No.207/2001 was registered under Sections 279/304-A IPC at PS Adarsh Nagar on 16.05.2001 at 9.15 pm.
7. Thereafter on typed complaint dated 23.05.2001 filed by Sh.Azad Hussain Malik, brother of the deceased, initially addressed to Commissioner of Police but after cutting addressed to SHO, PS Adarsh Nagar. The rukka was sent from PS Adarsh Nagar after making endorsement on the com
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
