IMPORTANT POINT
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 insufficient for prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.01.2016, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Complaint Case no. 1201 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. The complaint case was lodged by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that the complainant is the younger son of the deceased Kanti Sinha who died due to the gross medical negligence committed by the accused persons while she was admitted in the Hospital namely Dwaraka Das Jalan Memorial Hospital (Accused No. 1 in CP case). It is alleged that the accused No. 1 Hospital is being managed by Jeevan Rekha Trust and the accused No. 2 (The present Petitioner) is the treating Doctor under whom the deceased was under treatment and accused No. 3-5 are Junior Doctor who mostly attended to the deceased and used to give medicine by their own or on advice of the petitioner and accused No. 6 is the chairman of the said Hospital. It is further alleged that 08.09.2011 the deceased patient complaint about her weakness and trouble in passing of urine, therefore she was taken into Hospital and after consultations with the petitioner he paid some amount on counter and further admitted into the Hospital.

It is alleged that on advice of the Petitioner, the deceased was admitted in the CCU as she was suffering from Urinary tract infection and asked to purchase some medicine and it was also told by the petitioner that since she is suffering from high blood sugar, therefore insulin is required to administered and the Hospital does not share any thing to the patient or attended, they were only providing the slip of medicine and complainant was required to purchased the same from the shop which also runs by the Accused no. 1 Hospital. More enough than not, they also collected some amount even after death of the patient but the Complainant or other witness were totally unaware about the reason of death.

It is further alleged that it reveals only when the elder son of the deceased in the month of November 2011 applied for the copy of documents for medical claim then only they could see and scrutinized the medical record of the patient which took time in collecting the same and from 8th September 2011 itself the accused No. 3 administered insulin on regular basis even in order to check Blood Sugar, the accused person put glucometer in use. It is further alleged that on 10th September 2011 the complainant raised this question with the accused no. 2 & 3 regarding use of Glucometer and the complainant requested for biochemical test but the accused no. 2 insisted upon using the Glucometer which led to heavy administration of Insulin leading to fatal consequences as the accused persons does not rely upon biochemical analysis.

It is alleged that on the one hand the complainant and the witnesses are not medical expert and further accused persons were also not sharing any thing with them except the fact that insulin was being administered in much quantity and thus it was gross failure on their part. The accused no. 2 adopted method of telephonic prescription of medicines and drugs even to the patient kept in critical care Unit and on advice of the petitioner, the patient was admitted in the CCU but the accused No. 2/petitioner did not taken care and overdose of insulin was administered caused death of patient and it was revealed when medical report was provided to them.

It is also alleged that though accused no. 3 to 5 are qualified Doctor but they do not utilize their skill and they do only what accused No. 2 guided them. It is also surprising that accused no. 2 take defend himself by saying that he treats or prescribes medicine on the