IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of obtaining a competent medical opinion before taking cognizance against a doctor in negligence cases is reaffirmed.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside and quashing of the Order dated 07.11.2019, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar)-I, Kamrup (M) in Complaint Case No. 3459/2019 taking cognizance against the present petitioner under Section 192/304(A)/316 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the entire proceedings thereof insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is a MD in Medicine and passed his MBBS Course in the year 2001 from the Gauhati Medical College Hospital at Guwahati and currently pursuing DM, Nephrology in the Regional Institute of Medical Science, Imphal in the State of Manipur. Prior to the joining of the aforementioned super specialty course at Imphal, he was working in the Apollo Hospitals, Guwahati as an Intensive Care Specialist.

4. The complainant/respondent No. 1 instituted the above referred Complaint Case against the present petitioner along with other accused persons alleging negligence on their part which caused death of his wife Late Nasima Sultana, who was pregnant at the time of her death. The complainant has arrayed the present petitioner as accused No. 10 in the said Complaint Petition. But, it is contended that on plain reading of the complaint petition, it is apparent that there is no allegation leveled against the present petitioner except in paragraph No. 13 of the complaint petition with regard to not making any attempt to deliver the baby in the I.C.U. where the deceased was administered emergency treatment as a patient.

5. The learned Trial Court below, after recording the deposition of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also recording the statement of the mother-in-law of the complainant as witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had taken cognizance vide Order dated 07.11.2019, under Sections 192/304(A)/316 IPC, against the present petitioner as accused No. 10 along with others. But it is stated that the petitioner never received any summons of the aforesaid case till date and he only came to know about the issuance of summons against him from the accused No. 11, who is his colleague. He also received the information that the Apollo Hospitals declined to accept the summons in respect of him as he is no longer employed in the said Hospital.

6. It is further stated that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as a doctor in the Apollo International Hospital Limited, Guwahati as a Specialist in Critical Care Unit and was discharging his primary duty in the Intensive Care Unit (I.C.U.), wherein he used to handle the emergency patients. The I.C.U. of the Hospital has art facilities, including necessary medicines and equipments. On 15.07.2018, at around 12.15 a.m. (Midnight), a patient was brought to the Apollo International Hospital as an emergency patient, who was in unconscious state at that time, and hence, considering her condition, she was directly admitted to the I.C.U. Accordingly, the team of doctors in the I.C.U., including the present petitioner along with accused Nos. 9 & 11, had started treating the patient as per protocol which included administering Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) amongst other as the patient had no palpable carotid pulse. The CPR was administered for 4 times, however no signs were shown, barring a faint recovery in between, which was shown to the family members of the deceased. While the deceased was in I.C.U. she was provided with best possible care and treatment, however the patient could not be recovered and as such, she was declared death at about 1.15 a.m. on 15.07.2018.

7. It is further stated that the respondent No. 1 had also approached the State Human Rights Co