Criminal negligence in medical cases requires a higher degree of culpability than civil negligence; mere errors in judgment do not suffice for prosecution under Section 304-A IPC.

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.40 of 2017 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Metropolitan Criminal Courts at Secunderabad which was transferred to the Court of XIV Additional Judge cum XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad and was renumbered as C.C.No.499 of 2018.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Secunderabad was that on 18.12.2015 at 03:00 P.M, the complainant lodged a report before the police station alleging that on 01.11.2015 his brother Junnoothula Narsimha Reddy aged 65 years resident of Godisaala Village of Karimnagar District was admitted in Aaditya Nursing Home at Karimnagar for treatment of stomach ache. The doctors after conducting medical tests confirmed that he was suffering with Acute Pancreatitis and advised to shift the patient to KIMS Hospital at Secunderabad for better treatment. On the advice of the doctors, the patient was shifted to KIMS hospital at Secunderabad and was admitted on 04.11.2015 at 12:15 hours. The hospital management informed to pay Rs.40,000/- before admission and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.45,000/- on the same day and treatment was started. While undergoing treatment at KIMS hospital, his brother J. Narsimha Reddy expired on 05.11.2015 at 10:00 hours. The KIMS hospital management splashed a bill of Rs.3,11,217/- for 34 hours treatment towards cost of blood and blood plates, room charge, dialysis for 24 hours and doctors’ charges. He further alleged that the patient was given 77 injections abnormally resulting in the death of his brother. Basing on the said complaint, the Investigating Officer registered a case vide Crime No.304 of 2015 under Section 304-A IPC.

3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected medical report of the patient at KIMS Hospital and submitted the same to the Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and sought to constitute a Medical Board to examine the cause of death of the patient J. Narsimha Reddy to know whether there was any medical negligence.

The Superintendent constituted a Medical Board with the Professor & Head of Department (HOD) Gastroenterology and the Professor & Head of Department (HOD) of General Surgery and they after examining the medical record of the patient opined that though the patient was very critically ill, the dose of the Inotropes used was unusually high and similarly the amount of I.V. fluids given was also on higher side, keeping in view of severe LV dysfunction. Basing on the said opinion given by the expert team of doctors, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against A1 to A3, Managing Director of KIMS Hospital and the doctor who treated the deceased and the management of the KIMS hospital for the offence under Section 304-A read with 109 IPC.

4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners Sri Vivek Jain and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Sri T. Govinda Rajulu.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, no prima facie case was made out against the accused to prosecute them for the offence under Section 304-A read with 109 IPC, even if the allegations in the charge sheet were taken on their face value to be true. A reading of the complaint would disclose that the main grievance of the complainant was charging of amounts and excessive billing which was not an offence under Section 304-A read with 109 IPC. There was no specific assertion in the complaint against the petitioner No.2 or other doctors alleging negligence in treatment. The entire charge sheet was built on surmises and conjectures without actual investigation and the investigating agency did not even examine the cause of death. The deceased was suffering from multi organ failure and his chances of survival were very bleak, less than 10% to 15%.

The report of the Expert Medical