Medical professionals cannot be held liable for negligence if their actions conform to acceptable medical standards, and allegations against nursing staff do not pertain to the doctor.

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.171 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304A /34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the doctor of JIMS Hospital and he was treating the sister of the informant. The sister of the informant was admitted in the said hospital because of the injuries sustained in her waist. During the treatment, the condition of the sister of the informant deteriorated. The informant intimated the nurse of the hospital to intimate the doctor but the nurse did not call any doctor; because of which the sister of the informant died in the morning of 31.08.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in 2005 INSC 334 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in paragraph-49 that negligence in the context of medical profession does not mean a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident as such things are not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the admitted case of the informant that the nurse of the hospital did not intimate the petitioner about the deterioration of the condition of the sister of the informant warranting immediate intervention of the petitioner. So, obviously the petitioner was not aware about the deteriorated condition of the sister of the informant nor is it the case of the informant that the informant himself intimated the petitioner about the deteriorating condition of his sister. Hence, it is submitted that by no stretch of imagination any negligence can be attributed to the petitioner and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the allegation of negligence is against the nurse of the hospital but there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of any negligence on the part of the petitioner who is the doctor of the hospital. In the absence the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety still no offence punishable under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.171 of 2019, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

8. Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.171 of 2019, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

9. In view of the