SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Raj) 993

[Citation : 2009(4) RLW 3625 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee (Sinha, J.)
HON'BLE S.B. SINHA, J.
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
Malay Kumar Ganguly
Versus
Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1191-1194 of 2005 With 1727 of 2007, decided on 07.08.2009

Advocates Appeared
Shashi Bhushan Kumar, for Appellant;
Avijit Bhattacharjee, for Respondents

Headnote:(a) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 13 and Evidence Act, 1872 — Applicability of provisions of Evidence Act — Procedure — Provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable to proceedings before National Commission, only principles of natural justice are to be complied — Held — Proceedings before the Commission are judicial proceedings but it is not a Civil Court. (Paras 55 & 56)

        ¼d½ miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 13 vkSj lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] lk{; vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk mi;kstu & izfØ;k & lk{; vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku jk"Vªh; vk;ksx ds le{k dk;Zokgh ij ykxw ugha gksrs gS dsoy uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa dh gh vuqikyuk djuh gksrh gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vk;ksx ds le{k dk;Zokgh U;kf;d dk;Zokgh gksrh gS ysfdu ;g dksbZ nhokuh U;k;ky; ugha gksrk gSA ¼in la[;k 55] 56½

       (b) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 45 — Expert evidence — A Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts which is advisory in nature — Held — Opinion must be based on a special skill or knowledge — The evidence of an expert should be interpreted like any other evidence.

        (Paras 45 & 46)

        ¼[k½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 45 & fuiw.kZ lk{; & U;k;ky; foks"kK ds lk{; ls ck/; ugha gksrk] ;g ijkekhZ izd`fr dh gksrh gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vfHker foks"k n{krk ;k Kku ij vk/kkfjr gksuk vko;d gS & foks"kK ds lk{; dh O;k[;k fdlh vU; lk{; dh Hkkafr dh tkuh gSA ¼in la[;k 45 o 46½

       (c) Penal Code, Sec. 304-A and Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 12 to 14 and 22 — Criminal negligence in medical treatment — Doctrine of cumulative effect is not available in criminal law — Held — Doctors were negligent for the death of patient but it cannot be said that they should be held guilty for commission of an offence u/Sec. 304-A IPC.

       Civil Appeal disposed of. (Paras 210, 211 & 218)

       Criminal appeals dismissed.

        ¼x½ n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 304-d vkSj miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 12 ls 14 vkSj 22 & fpfdRlh; mipkj esa vkijkf/kd ykijokgh & QkStnkjh fof/k esa lap;h izHkko dk fl)kUr miyC/k ugha gksrk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & jksxh dh e`R;q ds fy, fpfdRld ykijokg Fks ysfdu ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd mUgsa Hkk-n-la- dh /kkjk 304-d ds rgr vijk/k dkfjr djus gsrq nks"kh Bgjk;k tkuk pkfg;sA ¼in l[a;k 210] 211] 218½

       QkStnkjh vihysa [kkfjt dhA

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble SINHA, J.—

A . Introduction

A . 1. Background Facts:

The patient (Anuradha) and her husband Dr. Kunal Saha (for short, “Kunal”) were settled in the United States of America. Anuradha, a child Psychologist by profession, was a recent graduate from a prestigious Ivy League School (‘Columbia University’ in the New York State). Although a doctor by profession, Kunal has been engaged in research on H.I.V/ AIDS for the past 15 years.

2. They left U.S.A. for a vacation to India on 24th March, 1998. They arrived in Calcutta on 1st April, 1998. While in Calcutta, Anuradha developed fever along with skin rash on 25th April, 1998. On 26th April, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Respondent No. 1 herein attended and examined Anuradha at her parental residence on a professional call. Dr. Mukherjee assured the patient and her husband of a quick recovery and advised her to take rest but did not prescribe her any specific medicine. However, two weeks thereafter, i.e., on 7th May, 1998, the skin rash reappeared more aggressively. Dr. Mukherjee was again contacted and as per his instructions, Anuradha was taken to his chamber. After examining Anuradha, Dr. Mukherjee prescribed Depomedrol injection 80 mg twice daily for the next three days. Despite administration of the said injection twice daily, Anuradha’s condition deteriorated rapidly from bad to worse over the next few days. Accordingly, she was admitted at the Advanced Medicare Research Institute (AMRI) in the morning of 11th May, 1998 under Dr. Mukherjee’s supervision. Anuradha was also examined by Dr. Baidyanath Halder, Respondent No. 2 herein. Dr. Halder found that she had been suffering from Erithima plus blisters. Her condition, however, continued to deteriorate further. Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, Consultant, Respondent No. 3 was also consulted on 12th May, 1998.

3. On or about 17th May, 1998, Anuradha was shifted to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai as her condition further deteriorated severely. She breathed her last on 28th May, 1998.

4. Kunal sent a lawyer’s notice to 26 persons on 30th September, 1998. The first 19 addressees were those who had treated Anuradha at Kolkata while addressee numbers 20 to 26 were those who treated her in Mumbai.

5. On or about 19th November, 1998 one of his relatives, Malay Kumar Ganguly filed a Criminal Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Paraganas at Alipore against Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Halder and Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for commission of offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Thereafter Kunal filed O.P. Nos. 240 of 1999 against 19 persons who had rendered medical advice/treatment/facilities to Anuradha between 23rd April, 1998 and 17th May, 1998 at Kolkata before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (Commission). However, pursuant to the orders of the Commission names of some of the respondents were struck off.

7. In the said petition the complainant claimed an amount of compensation of Rs. 77,76,73,500/- with interest for the alleged deficiency in the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and AMRI hospital (Respondent No.4).

8. On or about 17.7.1999, a complaint was filed by Kunal against Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Halder and Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury before the West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) making allegations similar to the one he had made in his complaint before the Commission.

9. On or about 29th May, 2000 , OP No. 179 of 2000 was filed by Kunal against the doctors, including Dr. Udwadia of the Breach Candy Hospital at Mumbai and the hospital itself before the Commission.

10. Before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the said criminal complaint a large number of witnesses were examined. A large number of documents were also marked as exhibits. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore by his judgment and order dated 29th May, 2002 found Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of commission of an offence under Section 304











































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top