Indian News

HC suspends ayurveda doc's jail term, grants bail

Source: , Posted On:   08 February 2021

Bombay HC suspends ayurveda doctor’s jail term, grants bail | Pune News - Times of India

PUNE: The Bombay high court has suspended a Pune sessions court’s 10-year jail sentence to an ayurveda practitioner and granted him bail till his appeal against the conviction is finally disposed of.
On September 29 last year, the Pune court had convicted and sentenced Sachin Hari Deshpande (applicant in present matter) with Jitendra Suresh Shimpi, both ayurveda practitioners, to 10 years in jail and fined Rs2.5 lakh each for culpable homicide not amounting to murder following the death of a pregnant woman in the hospital owned by Shimpi at Kiwale in May 2012.
The high court granted bail to Shimpi on January 21 this year, following which Deshpande’s lawyer Aniket Ujjwal Nikam moved a plea seeking similar relief for his client.
Shimpi and Deshpande, having BAMS and MS in shalyatantra (general surgery) qualifications, performed caesarean and tubectomy surgeries on Rajashree Anil Jagtap (22) on May 1, 2012.
“This despite the two not having an MS qualification in gynaecology and obstetrics,” the prosecution argued. Post-surgery, the woman suffered from excessive bleeding and had to be shifted to another hospital, where she passed away on May 2, 2012.
Justice Sandeep K Shinde of the high court said on February 3, “It is to be ascertained from the evidence whether the post-caesarean death of Rajashree was due to a medical negligence i.e. doctors had failed in discharging the duty of care owed by them to Rajashree or whether the appellant (being not qualified to perform caesarean) had knowledge that his act was likely to cause her death.”
The bench said the tenor of the expert panel member’s evidence, relied on by the prosecution, suggested “negligence on the part of the accused while performing the operation”, but the evidence by another prosecution witness, also a doctor, suggested that the surgery was “properly” done.
The bench also noted that the applicant did not misuse the bail relief during the pendency of the trial.