How far the Doctor can be held liable for criminal action in case wherein one scissor was left in the abdominal area of the patient during the course of surgery/treatment ?

2. The facts giving rise to the above question are thus:

The complainant, who was pregnant, had delivered a child on 14.5.1999. It was cesarean operation. The operation was carried out at Anand Hospital, Ankleshwar, which is said to be run by Doctor Family - Dr. Mahendrabhai Panchal (who is hereinafter referred to as A/1) and Dr. Rekhaben his wife (who is hereinafter referred to as A/2). Their Hospital is situated at Ankleshwar. After delivery, she was discharged from the hospital on 22.5.1999. Thereafter, she had said to have developed pain in her abdominal area. After consultation with the doctor, complainants sonography was carried out on 23.6.1999. X-ray was also carried out by Dr. Nanavati (A/3). It is the say of the complainant that in sonography report though scissor was found by Dr. Nanavati, the same was not immediately disclosed to the complainant. It is alleged that there was connivance between all the accused. Then at the instance of the sister of the complainants husband (Nanand), who appears to reside at Bombay, the complainant was referred to Bhakti Vedanta Hospital at Bombay. There X-ray /sonography was undergone by the complainant. She was operated there and a scissor was alleged to have been found from her body. Then on 27.3.2000, a private complaint came to be lodged by the complainant before the learned J.M.F.C. Ankleshwar against Dr. Mahendra G. Panchal, Dr. Rekha M. Panchal of Anand Hospital and Dr. D.N. Nanavati of X-ray & Urological Clinic, Ankleshwar, alleging that the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 198, 406, 420, 337, 338 read section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 1905/2000.

3. Pursuant to the complaint, the complainant, her husband and one Dr. Shah of Bombay were examined for framing charge. These witnesses were also cross-examined. Before framing of charge, accused had applied for discharge. The said discharge application came to be decided by the learned J.M.F.C. Ankleshwar by his order dated 16.7.2005. The learned Magistrate was pleased to hold that no case is made out for the offences under Sections 196, 197, 198 nor there is a question of offence under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC in the facts of the case. However, the trial Court had ordered that charge be framed against all the three accused for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 read section 114 IPC.

4. The above order of learned J.M.F.C was carried in revision by the accused. A/1 & A/2 preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 96/2005 and A/3 preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 105/2005 before the Sessions Court, Ankleshwar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-5), Ankleshwar, considered both the revision applications of all the three accused and by a common judgment & order dated 29.9.2005 was pleased to allow revision application qua A/2 (Dr. Rekhaben Panchal) and revision application of A/3 (Dr. D.N.Nanavati, Radiologist) and passed an order in the revision qua A/1 (Dr. Mahendra Panchal) that charge be framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 337 & 338 IPC. The present three Criminal Misc. Applications arise out of the aforesaid common order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

5. Misc. Criminal Application Nos. 12500/2005 & 12490/2005 are filed by the original complainant praying to quash and set aside the common judgment and order dated 29.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 105/2005 & 96/2005; whereas Criminal Misc. Application No. 828/2006 is filed by Dr. Mahendra G.Panchal (A/1) praying to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.7.2005 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Ankleshwar in Criminal Case No.1905/2005 and also to quash and set aside the order