IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Maninder S. Bhatti, J.
Shri Shambhoolal Khattar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17803 of 2023
Decided On : 18-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inaction by authorities in registering case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments supporting negligence claim against doctors (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of expert testimony and procedural requirements. (Para 5) |
| 4. petitioner's grievances and claims of negligence (Para 7) |
| 5. legal standards for medical negligence (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. protection for doctors against frivolous allegations (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. constitutional validity of authorities' actions (Para 13) |
| 8. burden of proof on petitioner regarding negligence (Para 14) |
| 9. bolam test application in medical standards (Para 15) |
| 10. requirement of expert opinion on medical negligence (Para 16) |
| 11. dismissal of the petition with no costs (Para 17) |
ORDER :
Maninder S. Bhatti, J.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not registering the case against the Doctors of Ashish Hospital, which according to the petitioner, were responsible for the death of the son of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the patient).
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the son of the petitioner was admitted in Ashish Hospital, Jabalpur on 27.1.2022 at about 11:15 AM for the purpose of surgery of stone. On 27.1.2022, at about 8:00 PM, the surgery was conducted for about one hour and after the surgery, the patient was shifted to normal ward and at that time the Blood Pressure of the patient was 150/90, which was not normal. On 29.1.2022 at about 7:00 AM, the patient started feeling pain in his chest and fell down. The patient was not provided any emergency medical back, therefore, the patient died due to cardiac arrest. It is further averred in the petition that after performing the last rites of his son, the petitioner went again to Ashish Hospital and asked for Fitness Test Report, ECG report and CBC Test and all other documents relating to the patient but the same were not provided to him. Thereafter, when the petitioner made communications dated 3.3.2022, 15.3.2022 and 29.3.2022 to the Authorities of the Ashish Hospital, the ECG report was provided to him and thereafter he came to know that the ECG number mentioned is not the same as the ECG No. mentioned previously and the patient ID number in the ECG is also different as compared and mentioned in the Admission Card. Thereafter on 21.5.2022, the petitioner again made a communication to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to register a case against the concerned Doctors of the said hospital. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 refused to register a case on the ground that they would first seek expert's advice as regards the said issue. Subsequently on 9.5.2023, an expert report of two Doctors of the Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur was provided to the petitioner wherein no negligence on the part of the Doctors of Ashish Hospital was found. The petitioner produced the said report and other documents before the Medical Board, Umaria, which was contrary to the report submitted by two Doctors of Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. It is submitted that inspite of High Blood pressure, the surgery of the patient was conducted, which amounted to medical negligence and comes within the purview of offence under Section 304-II of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . By referring the above opinion of the Medical Board, Umaria, the petitioner again wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 for registering the case against the Doctors involved but to no avail. Hence, this petition has been filed.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case where the patient, who was the son of the petitioner, was done to death on account of gross negligence at the behest of the Doctors of the Ashish Hospital, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & another - (2005) 6 SCC 1 , the case ought to have been registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is furt
Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & another
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others
Kusum Sharma and others Vs.Batra Hospital and Medical Research Center and others
Medical negligence requires substantial expert evidence to warrant prosecution; mere allegations without solid proof are insufficient.
Medical negligence accusations must be substantiated by clear evidence; mere allegations, without expert consensus on negligence, are insufficient for criminal liability.
Criminal negligence requires substantial proof of gross negligence; mere allegations do not suffice for prosecution under IPC, particularly in medical cases.
Criminal proceedings against doctor quashed absent gross negligence proof and where inquiry report confirms no involvement in treatment; high threshold per established guidelines required for medical....
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.
Criminal negligence in medical cases requires a higher degree of negligence than civil liability; sufficient prima facie evidence can justify prosecution without expert testimony.
Criminal prosecution for medical negligence requires evidence of gross negligence, not merely attendance during emergencies, and must be substantiated with expert testimony.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.