Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Shakuntala Kumar @ Shakuntala Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The facts of Cr.M.P. No.1674 of 2012 is different and in that view of the matter, let Cr.M.P. No. 1674 of 2012 be detached from Cr.M.P. No.1387 of 2012.
2. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bermo P.S. Case No.69 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No.613 of 2011 and also for quashing the cognizance order dated 29.05.2012, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.
4. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that on 08.05.2011, the wife of the informant was admitted in the hospital of this petitioner. After seeing the patient, the petitioner has advised for operation immediately, but due to negligent act of the petitioner during course of operation the wife of the informant succumbed to her injuries and the baby was referred to Bokaro General Hospital where he was also declared dead on 09.05.2011 and the present case has been lodged.
For criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC in cases of medical negligence, there must be gross negligence proven by credible medical evidence; mere allegations without such evidence are insuffici....
Competent medical opinion is necessary in cases of medical negligence, and the court emphasized the need for care and caution in the interest of society when prosecuting doctors for offenses of crimi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a preliminary enquiry in cases of medical negligence, the need for caution in prosecuting doctors, and the seriousness of summo....
The need for a credible opinion from another competent doctor to support the charge of negligence before entertaining a private complaint against a doctor and the inability to fasten vicarious liabil....
Criminal prosecution for medical negligence requires evidence of gross negligence, not merely attendance during emergencies, and must be substantiated with expert testimony.
The court emphasized the requirement of gross negligence and high recklessness to fasten criminal liability on doctors.
Medical professionals cannot be prosecuted for negligence unless there is gross negligence established through expert opinion; mere errors or lack of consent do not suffice.
A negative final report does not bar further investigation and prosecution in cases of medical negligence requires substantial expert evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
