Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Dr. Ashish Khare – Applicant
Versus
State of M.P. and another – Respondent
MCRC No.1736 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2018
For the Applicant : Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, Counsel
For the Respondent: Shri. S.D. Khan, Public Prosecutor
The judgment establishes the principle that a person must possess the requisite qualifications and be enrolled as a medical practitioner to practice in a specific system of medicine.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashment of F.I.R. - Section 304-A of I.P.C. read with Section 24 of M.P. State Ayurvigyan Parishad Act - 24(ia) of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 2016 - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a Homeopathic Doctor, is accused of treating a patient with Allopathy medicines, resulting in the patient's death. The applicant claims to be eligible to practice in Allopathy, while the state argues otherwise.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant, despite being an Ayurvedacharya, was not eligible to prescribe Allopathy medicines. The court also held that the applicant's act of prescribing Allopathy medicines amounted to gross negligence, and there was sufficient evidence to show medical negligence.
Issues: Competence of the applicant to prescribe Allopathy medicines, requirement for obtaining a report on medical negligence before registration of a criminal case, and the specific cause of death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted relevant provisions of the M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 2016 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to determine the eligibility of the applicant to prescribe Allopathy medicines. The court also applied the principles of negligence as established by the Supreme Court in previous cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application seeking quashment of the charge sheet and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a specified period.
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of F.I.R. No.714/2017 registered by Police Station Gadarwara, Distt. Narsinghpur under Section 304-A of I.P.C. read with Section 24 of M.P. State Ayurvigyan Parishad Act.
3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant is a Homeopathic Doctor having his Hospital at Gadarwara, Distt. Narsingpur. An information was given by the respondent no.2 to the police that although the applicant is a Homoeopathy Doctor, but he is practicing in Allopathy and had given Allopathy medicines to his father, who was admitted in his hospital as he was having high fever, and thereafter his father died during treatment. On this complaint, the police started Merg enquiry against the applicant and ultimately registered an offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and under Section 24 of M.P. State Ayurvigyan Parishad Act.
4. The police during investigation collected certificate from the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Narsingpur, who opined that the applicant is a Homoeopathy Doctor and is not competent to treat the patients in Allopathy. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and his viscera was preserved. Methyl Cobalamin Aciclophinic Paracetamol and Dyclophin medicine was found in the Viscera. However, the doctors could not give any specific finding with regard to the cause of death. They could not give any finding that whether the death was natural or he had died because of overdose of the medicines. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and under Section 24 of M.P. State Ayurvigyan Parishad Act.
5. Challenging the charge sheet filed by the police, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that although the applicant is an Ayurvedacharya, but he is eligible to practice in Allopathy and the cause of death could not be ascertained. It is further submitted that before registration of offence, the police did not obtain the report of a Committee or an independent Doctor of a Government Hospital with regard to the medical negligence of the applicant.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the applicant is an Ayurvedacharya and he is not eligible to practice in Allopathy and in spite of that he had treated the deceased by giving Allopathy medicines. Further, Allopathy medicines were found in the viscera and since the death of the deceased was not found natural, therefore, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material against the applicant. It is further submitted that since the applicant is not competent to practice in Allopathy, therefore, there was no need to constitute a Committee or refer the matter to a Doctor of a Govt. Hospital, to find out that whether there was any medical negligence on the part of the applicant or not?
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
8. The first contention of the applicant is that the applicant is an Ayurvedacharya and is competent to practice in Allopathy. To buttress his contentions, the applicant has relied upon his Graduate Degree of Ayurvedacharya. Since the prosecution has not challenged the Ayurvedacharya Degree obtained by the applicant, therefore, it is held that the applicant is an Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) having obtained the degree in the year 2006 from Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur. The applicant has further relied upon the certificate of training issued by the Principal Govt. Ayurved College, Jabalpur, which is to the effect that the applicant has obtained training in Allopathy for three months i.e., from 1-12-2006 to 2-3-2007. It is further submitted that as per Section 24(ia) of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, which was incorporated by M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2016, it is clear that the trained Ayurved D
