Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 1919
2009 (1) RCR(Cri) 743
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
AJAI LAMBA, J
Dr. Neena Gupta - Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & Another - Respondent(s)
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-10771 of 2007
Decided on: November 17, 2008
For the Petitioner: None.
For the Respondent:Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of negligence required to prove criminal liability on a doctor, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence and competent medical opinion to support the charge of negligence.
Headnote:
Negligence - Medical Malpractice - Section 304-A IPC - Dr. Neena Gupta - Blood transfusion, reaction, and negligence - Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the death of Devinder Kaur due to alleged negligence and carelessness during medical treatment given by Dr. Neena Gupta. The patient underwent blood transfusion, developed complications, and eventually died. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that prima facie evidence indicated negligence on the part of the petitioner, and the case should proceed to trial to determine criminal negligence as required by law. The court dismissed the petition and clarified that the order did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged negligence and carelessness of Dr. Neena Gupta during the medical treatment of Devinder Kaur, leading to her death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in Dr. Suresh Gupta Vs. Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi & Another and Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Another to determine the standard of negligence required to prove criminal liability on a doctor. The court emphasized the need for prima facie evidence and competent medical opinion to support the charge of negligence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that the facts and circumstances did not warrant quashing of the FIR. The petitioner was advised to bring evidence during the trial.
Ajai Lamba, J
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.96 dated 20.3.2006 lodged for commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC with Police Station, Civil Lines, District Patiala.
2. The FIR at issue registered at the instance of respondent No.2, Mr. Surinder Singh Chadha narrating that there was lump in the uterus of Devinder Kaur, aged 42 years, wife of the complainant. In context of the ailment, Devinder Kaur was taken to the petitioner, Dr. Neena Gupta, in her Clinic, Nitin Nursing Home, Ajit Nagar, Patiala on 5.3.2006. After examination, the petitioner recommended tests and prepared the file for surgery. Admission fee was taken and certain tests were recommended. The complainant was informed by the petitioner that the surgery would be conducted on 11.3.2006 (Saturday) at 6.30A.M. Blood count being less, blood transfusion was required and the complainant alongwith his wife was called to the Clinic on 10.3.2006. One unit of blood was requisitioned from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala by scribing sample letter. After starting the transfusion, at about 10.30 A.M. on 10.3.2006, the petitioner went somewhere to attend a function. No care of the patient was taken and Devinder Kaur was left at the mercy of untrained staff. The petitioner came back at around 1.30 P.M. Devinder Kaur was suffering and the complainant could not understand the cause. After returning, enquiries were made by the petitioner. By then, half the bottle had been transfused. One injection was given and the blood bottle was removed. Thereafter, till evening the petitioner did not pay any attention towards the patient i.e. wife of the complainant. By the night, Devinder Kaur started complaining of severe pain in her abdomen, perplexed and dizziness. Despite requests, no attention was paid to her. At 10.00 P.M., the petitioner informed the complainant that the disease of the patient was not within her understanding and the patient may be examined by calling some doctor from outside. The complainant however told the petitioner that because patient had been brought to her clinic and her condition had worsened on account of negligence of the petitioner, it was for the petitioner to call for another doctor at her level.
3. It is alleged that the petitioner after conducting a check up on the wife of the complainant stated that the patient was only making excuses. The complainant was turned out of the room. By then, the patient was suffering from urination problem. The petitioner left while instructing the staff that if urine was not passed, a tube may be put. The petitioner went to her house for sleeping. The tube for urination was inserted, however, it was of no use. The patient was suffering throughout the night. Some treatment was given by the staff. The condition of the patient worsened. The petitioner came on next day i.e. 11.3.2006 in the morning at 7.00 A.M. The petitioner was informed by the staff that the patient had not passed any urine, however, without attending on the patient, the petitioner went to the operation theatre for conducting another surgery on another patient.
4. It is further the allegation that in the meantime, condition of the wife of the complainant became precarious whereupon the petitioner was informed by a Nurse. The petitioner came out of the operation theatre and on seeing Devinder Kaur in a serious condition, Dr. Harbans Lal was called, whereafter some further treatment was given to the patient. During this period, the petitioner learnt that the condition of the patient had become serious because of blood transfusion. At about 8.00 P.M., the petitioner called the complainant and said that the condition was serious and she had no arrangements. The petitioner had spoken to the doctors in Fortis Hospital, Mohali whose Van and doctors would come and Devinder Kaur may be given treatment there. The complainant was further informed that if the patient was to be given treatment at Fortis Hospital, then decis
