Chairman liable for unethical hospital practices; bail denied due to serious allegations of medical malpractice.

ORDER :

M. R. MENGDEY, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11191020240478 of 2024 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 318 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sudhir Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah has submitted that in the present offence, investigation is over and a charge-sheet has been filed. The F.I.R. in the present offence was lodged on 10^th November, 2024 and the applicant herein was admittedly not present in India at the time of registration of an offence nor the applicant was present in India when the medical camp was organised at Village Borisana, Taluka Kadi. The applicant herein is not a qualified doctor and therefore, in no case the applicant could have advised any of the patients to undergo any procedure related to heart. He has further submitted that as per the case of prosecution, in the month of November, 2024, the medical camp was organised at Village Borisana by the Khyati Hospital and 89 villagers had attended the said camp and out of them, 19 people were called to Khyati Hospital at Ahmedabad on the next date for further examination. Accordingly, further examination was carried out qua those 19 patients and upon angiography investigation, it was found out all those 19 people, 7 people were required to undergo angioplasty and the said procedure was carried out by the co-accused Dr. Prashant Vajirani. It is the case of prosecution that the consent of relatives of the patients was not obtained for carrying out the procedure of angioplasty and due care was not taken after they underwent surgery in question. Since as stated herein-above, the applicant was not present in India at the relevant time, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the alleged lapses found in the hospital. On the fateful day, as per the case of prosecution, the angioplasty was carried out on patients, who did not require to undergo any such procedure at all and for this act, the applicant cannot be held responsible being a Chairman of the hospital. He has further submitted that the other co-accused who are responsible for day to day administration of the hospital, have been considered for grant of bail by this Court. The allegations against the present applicant as well as the other co-accused who have been considered for grant of bail are similar. There is nothing on record to indicate that it was the present applicant, who insisted upon the other co-accused and staff of the hospital to perform procedures of angiography and angioplasty on more and more patients, even if, they did not require any such procedure. He has further submitted that the prosecution seeks to rely upon the statement of one Mr. Jeet Harshadbhai Brahmbhatt, who is a disgruntled employee of the hospital. From his statement itself it appears that there was some dispute as regards payment of his salary between the hospital and himself and therefore, the statement of this witness does not appear to be reliable. He has further submitted that the present applicant may have attended meetings of Board of Director of Hospital being a Chairman and simply because he had attended those meetings, he could not be held responsible for the present offence. He has further submitted that it is the case of prosecution that 90% of revenue of the hospital was generated through PMJAY Scheme. However, the Chartered Accountant engaged by the Investigating Agency has submitted a report to the Investigating Officer after conducting forensic audit of th