To initiate legal proceedings against a medical professional for negligence, there must be a competent expert opinion confirming a prima facie case of negligence, following procedural mandates.

ORDER :

K. Surender, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in CC.No.6148 of 2019 on the file of VI Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, for the offence under Section 304-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Dr. Swapna Kumari, is a gynaecologist at Swapna Hospital, Chaitanyapuri, which she operates. The 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint with Chaitanyapuri PS, alleging that his marriage with Divya was solemnized on 11.11.2018. His wife, Divya, became pregnant and regularly visited Swapna Hospital for check-ups under the petitioner's care. On 20.2.2019, Divya was admitted to the hospital for an abortion on the advice of the petitioner and remained there until 22.2.2019. After receiving antibiotics, she was discharged. Due to excessive bleeding, Divya suffered a miscarriage, resulting in the foetus expelling itself. She was subsequently readmitted to the hospital to remove the remaining foetal tissue. The hospital authorities informed the 2^nd respondent that Divya’s blood level was only 7.8%. At 7:00 am, the petitioner took her to the operation theatre, and by 2:00 pm, the 2nd respondent was informed that Divya had lost consciousness and was advised to shift her to Omni Hospital. Upon Divya’s arrival at Omni Hospital, doctors declared that she was brought dead. When the 2^nd respondent returned to Swapna Hospital, the petitioner refused to communicate with him, leading to the filing of the present complaint.

3. Upon receiving the complaint, LW.18 registered Crime No. 99/2019 under Section 304-A of IPC. During the investigation, LW.19 collected the case sheet and other relevant documents from Swapna Hospital and forwarded them to LW.17, posing two specific queries:

i. Whether a doctor can proceed with D&C (Dilation and Curettage) treatment on a two-and-a-half-month pregnant woman with haemoglobin levels at 7.8% and a prior history of cardiac disease.

ii. Whether there was any negligence on the doctor’s part in treating Divya.

4. LW.17, Dr. K.V.Swarya, DM&HO, RR District, opined that there was clear negligence on the part of Dr. Swapna in treating Divya without adequate expert support and care, leading to her death, particularly given her history of cardiac disease. Additionally, LW.16 issued the PME Report and final opinion, wherein he opined that the cause of death was due to ‘gross pulmonary edema in a case of pulmonary artery hypertension consequent to congenital heart disease.’

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the police committed an error in registering the FIR and filing the charge sheet without first obtaining a proper medical opinion from either a Committee of Doctors or an Expert Doctor specializing in the relevant field. The opinion of LW.17 cannot be considered an expert opinion, as she is neither a gynaecologist nor a cardiologist, and thus lacks the requisite expertise to determine negligence on the petitioner's part. The PME report does not indicate any negligence or suspicious circumstances warranting the registration of an FIR. It was further argued that the police failed to adhere to the legal principles established in the Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Ors. /b>, [(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1] and Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq , [ (2009) 3 SCC 1 ]

6. Counsel further argued that G.O.Ms.No. 465, dated 16