IMPORTANT POINT
A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another.

Ramesh Sinha and Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.—Heard Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri Suhel Ahmad Azmi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is not present though the matter is called in the revised list.

2. Dr. Amit Upadhyay is before this Court assailing the impugned First Information Report dated 02.05.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 288 of 2016, under Sections 336 and 326, Police Station Medical College, District Meerut.

3. Record in question reflects that the petitioner is a qualified doctor and at present he is the Head of Department of Paediatrics, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut. Record in question further reflects that impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent No. 3 alleging therein that her daughter ‘Falak’ was born on 03.07.2015 at Tara Chand Shastri Hospital, Hapur after operation. Thereafter, the daughter of respondent No. 3 was referred to Medical College, Meerut as she was under weight. At Medical College, Meerut the treatment was given to baby Palak by the petitioner.

4. It has been alleged that due to negligence being shown by the petitioner, the baby Falak has lost her eye sight.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that petitioner is fully qualified and competent doctor and at present he is the Head of Department of Paediatrics, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut. He further submits that at the point of time, when the matter was referred to the petitioner, the daughter of respondent No. 3 was suffering from various diseases pneumonia, septicemia and malaria. When the matter was initially entertained by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.05.2016, this Court has proceeded to accord interim protection that the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned first information report and further directed the District Magistrate, Meerut to constitute a medical board keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2005) 6 SCC. Lastly, he submits that once the inquiry report of the medical board constituted by the District Magistrate, Meerut dated 03.09.2016 is before this Court wherein it has been held that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner, then in such circumstance, the impugned first information is liable to be quashed.

6. In this backdrop, Sri Vikash Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State contends that in response to the directives so issued by this Court on 27.05.2016, the District Magistrate, Meerut has constituted high power committee consisting of experts of the field which is annexed as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit of compliance.

7. We have proceeded to examine the record as well as the inquiry report dated 03.09.2016 and what we find that the inquiry report dated 03.09.2016 was submitted by the medical board consisting of Dr. M.K. Bansal, Member, Medical Board, Physician, Member, Central Working Committee, IMA Head Quarter, Ex-President IMA Meerut, Meerut, Sri Arvind Singh, Head, Medical Board, IAS (P), Joint Magistrate, Meerut, Dr. Amit Jain, Member, Medical Board, MD (Pediatrics), Secretary, Indian Academy of Pediatrics, Meerut Chapter, Meerut and Dr. Anand Prakash, Member, Medical Board, Sr. Consultant (Pediatrics), District Female Hospital, Meerut wherein the medical board unanimously concludes that neither Dr. Amit Upadhyaya or for that matter any other doctor of the Department of Pediatrics, LLRM, Medical College, Meerut can be held guilty of any act of commission or omission in the case of treatment of baby Falak, resulting in her blindness and the allegation of negligence of petitioner (Dr. Amit Upadhyay) is thus untrue. The relevant extract of the inquiry report dated 03.09.2016 reads as under:—

“Final Conclusion of the Medical Board:

In the light of the documents, letter s, written replies of the questions sent to the parties, eviden