IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA st ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 14012 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SANDEEP SINGH YADAV S/O LATE SHRI CHALIRAJA SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DAILY WAGER R/O VILLAGE CHANDRANAGAR P.S. BAMITHA DISTRICT CHHATARPUR, CHHATARPUT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DIRECTORATE OF HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER CHHATAR PUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR CHHATARPUR CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHHATARPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION KOTWALI CHHATARPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVCOATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) Call for the entire material record from teh possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal;

(ii) This Hon'ble Court may pleased to direct the respondents to make an enquiry against the culprits and register an offence against them and take all appropriate action against all the culprits in the interest of justice.

(iii) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed.

(iv) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded.

2. The moot question for consideration is as to whether this Court can direct the police to conduct an enquiry into the alleged medical negligence against the doctor or not.

3. The question involved in the present case is no more res integra.

The Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 has held as under:-

“48. We sum up our conclusions as under:-

(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach' and 'resulting damage'.

(2) Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is 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. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of ne