Patna High Court: In a Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) for quashing the Trial Court’s order dismissing the application of discharge filed by a female gynaecologist under Section 227 of the CrPC, the Single Judge Bench of Chandra Shekhar Jha, J*., relying upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Devendra Nath Padhi and Bhajan Lal, to secure the ends of justice quashed the 22 year medical negligence case against her. The Court considered that the present accused, the wife of the operating Doctor was only present in the operation theatre as part of the team.
Background
The prosecution’s case was that the complainant was suffering from acute abdominal pain and got himself examined in the dispensary of the Central Government Health Scheme. His ultrasonography was conducted, and he was found to be suffering from mild Hepatomegaly and mild Benign. He was recommended to consult the operating doctor, after which he was found to be suffering from Chyluria. He was operated upon by the team of operating doctor including the present accused, the wife of the operating doctor.
Post-operation he started suffering from severe pain in the right side of the abdomen and his complications increased. He was again examined by another doctor recommended by the operating doctor and the report indicated the existence of the right kidney of the complainant in its normal size. But the complications kept increasing. The Complainant experiencing no relief got himself examined by another doctor who suspecting foul play suggested a USG examination of the abdomen. The report of this examination showed that the right kidney was ‘not seen’. Another examination confirmed that his right kidney had been operated on and was not visible. The complainant after deducing that his right kidney was illegally removed without his permission by the operating doctor and his team, had filed a complaint against them.
Analysis
The Court took notice of the medical report by the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (‘PGIMER Chandigarh’) wherein it was concluded that the right kidney of the complainant was not removed but shrunken and severely atrophic.
The Court further noted that the complainant had approached State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar which dismissed the case stating that the right kidney of the complainant had not been removed. This was further appealed in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) where too the case was dismissed citing non removal of kidney. The Court observed that since the decision by NCDRC was not challenged it attains finality.
The Court further stated that the present accused did nothing during the operation and was to only remain inside as a team member.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhajan Lal (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court had categorised scenarios where courts can use their powers under Article 226 or Section 482 of the CrPC “either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”. The case scenarios as recognised by the Supreme Court were- ‘1. The allegations in the initial report or complaint do not clearly show an offense or a case against the accused. 2. The report and supporting materials do not reveal a serious offense that would justify a police investigation without a magistrate’s order. 3. Undisputed allegations and evidence do not point to an offence or a case against the accused. 4. The report only describes a minor offense (non-cognizable), which means police can not investigate without a magistrate’s order. 5. The allegations are so illogical or unlikely that no reasonable person would conclude there’s enough reason to proceed against the accused. 6. There is a clear legal restriction in the law itself that prevents the case from being instituted and continued, or there is another effective remedy available for the aggrieved party. 7. The case is clearly brought in bad faith, with an ulterior motive, or to get revenge due to a personal vendetta.’
The Court further cited Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court held: “…To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury which resulted was most likely imminent’.
The Court further referred to Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, wherein the Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra), and observed: “… the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal case”
The Court while making a reference to Devendra Nath Padhi (Supra) where the concerned Court considered previous medical reports and medical history of the complainant, noted that even if the defence evidence cannot be looked into but the report of the PGIMER Chandigarh, a document of such unimpeachable character, can be considered.
The Court noted that the present accused was the wife of the operating Doctor, who had conducted the operation and was herself only present in the operation theatre as part of the team. The Court observed that prima facie the complaint petition does not make a case against the present accused. Also, no cognizance had been taken for criminal conspiracy and hence the present case falls within the golden guidelines as pronounced in the Bhajan Lal (Supra).
Hence, the Court quashed the order of Trial Court dismissing the application of discharge filed by the present accused wife.
[Mamta Singh v. State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No.27653 of 2024, decided on 24-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ajay Kumar Thakur, Vaishnavi Singh, Ritwik Thakur, Advocates
For the respondents: Navin Kumar Pandey, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sanjay Singh, Senior Advocate and Vinod Kumar, Advocate