Crl. Rev. P. No. 218 of 2008 Page 1 of 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: April 17, 2009

Date of decision: May 19, 2009

CRL. REV. P. No. 218 of 2008

DR. GANESH MANI

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal with

Mr. Simon Benjamin, Advocates.

versus

SHIKHA SAINI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. P.K. Malik, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes

JUDGMENT

19.05.2009

S. Muralidhar, J.

CRL. M.A. No. 4750 of 2008 (condonation of delay)

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the petition

is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

CRL. REV. P. No. 218 of 2008 & CRL. M.A. No. 4749 of 2008

(stay)

1. This revision petition is directed against an order dated 19^th

December 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate

2009:DHC:2175

Crl. Rev. P. No. 218 of 2008 Page 2 of 18

(„MM‟), New Delhi holding that there was material on record to charge

the Petitioner and other accused for the offences under Sections

336/337/471 read with 34 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Satish Kumar

Batra retired as Secretary, Social Welfare, Government of Delhi, in

1994. He had a cardiac problem and was admitted to the National

Heart Institute („NHI‟), East of Kailash, Delhi on 24^th May 1998. He

was advised a bypass surgery by the NHI. It was thought that the

Apollo Hospital (A-2) which is run by the Indraprastha Medical

Corporation Ltd. (A-1) would be a safer place. On 30^th May 1998 the

complainant the complainant was shifted to Apollo Hospital for his

surgery. The Petitioner Dr. Ganesh Mani (A-3), along with Dr.

S.K.Gupta, Senior Cardiologist (A-4) and Dr. A.M. Dua (A-5) decided

that the bypass surgery would be done on 1^st June 1998. The bypass

surgery performed on that day resulted in the complainant having to

spend an aggregate sum of Rs.2,22,123.03 as fees and Rs.36,750 for

medicines. On 11^th June 1998 the complainant was discharged having

been found fit. The complainant alleges that the discharge report dated

11^th June 1998 was false. Inter alia, it is alleged that there were 70

entries regarding blood pressure in the medical chart of the

complainant for the period 8^th to 11^th June 1998 and the blood pressure

touched 120/80 only once in the intervening night of 8^th/9^th June 1998.

It was 110/70, 100/64 and 90/65 on 8^th, 9^th and 10^th May 1998

respectively. According to the complainant the discharge report

2009:DHC:2175

Crl. Rev. P. No. 218 of 2008 Page 3 of 18

nevertheless reflected his blood pressure to be 120/80 as if it was for a

normal person. The other criticism of the discharge summary was that

it failed to indicate the ejection fraction, the TLC

(which

was

a

measure of infection), information about sputum infection and was

generally deficient in all vital signs including blood cholesterol. The

allegation is that at the time of discharge the complainant had sputum

infection and was suffering from fever. According to the complainant

A 3 to A5, in failing to indicate the above factors in the discharge

summary, acted in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger the life

and personal safety of the Petitioner.

3. According to the complainant he suffered low-grade fever on 17^th

and 23^rd June 1998 and consulted A-5. On the advice of A-3 and A-5

he was again admitted to Apollo Ho