Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3995
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J
Putul Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondent
CRR 2431 of 2017 | IA No. CRAN 1 of 2017 (Old No. CRAN 4191 of 2017)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh, Ms. Laboni Sikdar
For the Respondents: Mrs. Sohini Bhattacharya, Ms. Diksha Ghosh
An allegation of negligence requires substantial evidence; mere presence does not imply culpability in medical malpractice cases.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304A, 385, 420, 201 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations against staff member of nursing home for negligence leading to death of a patient - Petitioner neither named in FIR nor proven to have a significant role - Court emphasizes that no prima facie case is established against petitioner, invoking preventive jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. (Paras 15-25)
(B) Negligence in Medical Practice - The court highlights the necessity of specific allegations against medical staff and the inability to proceed against individuals without substantial evidence of wrongdoing. (Paras 12-24)
Facts of the case:
The FIR relates to a surgical operation leading to a patient's death, wherein the negligence of a doctor is claimed. The petitioner claims ignorance of any wrongdoing, highlighting a lack of evidence against her involvement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR lacked concrete allegations against the petitioner, as no direct evidence was presented to establish her involvement in causing the death of the patient.
Issues: Whether the FIR constituted a prima facie case against the nursing staff alleged to have acted negligently without substantial evidence linking them to any wrongdoing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of clear allegations in the FIR against the petitioner warranted quashing the proceedings, asserting that mere presence in the operating room does not imply culpability.
Result: CRR 2431 of 2017 is allowed.
Mrs. Sohini Bhattacharya … for opposite party no. 2 Ms. Diksha Ghosh … for the State.
The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing the proceeding being Ghatal P.S. Case No. 56 of 2012 dated
06.03.2012 qua the petitioner herein.
The averments made in the FIR were to the effect that wife of de-facto-complainant Mithu Das was treated by different doctors. Doctors opined that hemoglobin level of the patient was notably decreased while she was carrying. On 02.03.2012 said Mithu Das was admitted to the nursing home and was under the observation. On 5.3.2012 Caesar operation was done and said wife of the opposite party no. 2 gave birth of a male child but the opposite party no. 2 was not allowed to visit his wife. Thereafter another accused/doctor asked the opposite party no. 2 to sign on a paper and at about 4.p.m, the opposite party no. 2 found his wife lying dead in operation theatre. In the FIR it is alleged that Dr. Tushar Kanti Karmakar, is solely responsible for the death of the wife of the opposite party no. 2 for his alleged negligent act.
During investigation the petitioner herein who stated to act as staff (Nursing) in operation theatre was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur. After completion of investigation the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet under section 304A/385/420/201 of the Indian Penal Code against two doctors and another staff Mita Basu Karmakar and against the present petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding the petitioner herein submits that the allegation against the doctor is that knowing fully well that the hemoglobin level in the blood of the patient was shockingly low, doctor/accused admitted the patient and without taking any precautionary measure operated the patient and though the opposite party no. 2 herein made request to the doctor not to operate the patient but the doctor did not pay heed to such request, though from the admission form it appears that opposite party no. 2/complainant and the patient herself signed on it giving consent for operation. He further submits that from the post mortem examination report it appears that cause of death was due to the effect of haemorrhagic shock following surgical operation.
Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the present petitioner was appointed as nurse of said Nursing Home namely Ghatal Fertility Centre and she had no role to play in the offence, if any, and therefore she cannot be held responsible for doing any negligent act causing death of the patient. He further submits that from the FIR statements as well as the statement recorded during investigation under section 161 of the Cr. P.C, it appears that no allegation has been leveled against the present petitioner.
In such view of the matter, further continuance of the present proceeding against the present petitioner will be a mere abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite party/complainant submits that from the statement recorded during investigation, it would reveal that the present petitioner is a staff of that nursing home had asked the de-facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 herein to put signature on a blank paper and that she in connivance with the doctor/accused have committed the offence which is also reflected in the operation note, wherefrom it is clear that the present petitioner Putul Das acted as an assistant with the surgeon and the anesthetist. Accordingly, her involvement with the alleged offence cannot be ruled out and the real picture will reveal only during trial and at this stage of trial, it would not be proper to throw away the case of petitioner’s involvement with the alleged offence at its threshold.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the case diary and submits that the petitioner’s role transpired during investigation and for which she has been charge-sheeted and her involvement with the alleged offenc
