Police Authorities cannot proceed against medical professional in routine manner: MP HC comes to rescue of a doctor
Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea alleging medical negligence against a doctor, emphasizing that prosecution of medical professionals requires expert opinion. The bench, led by Justice MS Bhatti, referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jacob Mathew while hearing the petition of a man who sought the filing of an FIR against doctors at a private hospital.
The petitioner’s claim was that his son’s death, due to alleged negligence, amounted to culpable homicide.
The bench observed that the Supreme Court also referred to the “Bolam test” as the standard which determines that a medical professional
has performed his duty to provide care to the patient and that the procedure meant to treat the patient, has been duly followed by the medical
professionals.
The case goes back to 2022 when the son of the petitioner was admitted to Ashish Hospital,
Jabalpur on 27.1.2022 at about 11:15 AM for the purpose of surgery of a stone. On
27.1.2022, at about 8:00 PM, the surgery was conducted for about one hour and
after the surgery, the patient was shifted to a normal ward. On 29.1.2022 at
about 7:00 AM, the patient started feeling pain in his chest and fell down. The
petitioner claimed that the patient was not provided any emergency medical care
back, therefore, the patient died due to cardiac arrest.
Petitioner’s Submission:
The petitioner submitted that on
account of negligence while conducting the surgery, the son of the petitioner
died, and to substantiate the said contention, the counsel for the petitioner
stressed on the fact that the Blood Pressure reading of the patient was high and
in such circumstances, the surgery could not have been conducted. It was submitted that despite High Blood pressure, the patient’s surgery was performed, which amounted to medical
negligence and comes within the purview of an offence under Section 304-I of the
Indian Penal Code. It was also the petitioner’s grievance that the conduct
of the officials of the Ashish Hospital was suspicious as different IDs were
provided in the ECG report of the patient and no expert opinion was obtained.
Expert Committee Report:
The petitioner highlighted his grievance by approaching
various Authorities and the Chief Medical and Health Officer, then, constituted
a committee to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry was conducted by two qualified
Doctors and one of them was a Master of Surgery (General Surgery). The committee
of both the Doctors submitted a report and in the said report, it was clearly
mentioned that for different kinds of investigations in the Hospital, there were no
different counters and thus, there was a difference in ID numbers as well as
time.
The committee also
stated that the basic investigation of a patient is conducted before admission
and ultimately the persons accompanying the patient are instructed to make the
payment and obtain receipt thereof. In the meantime, the ECG investigation of the
patient was completed and thus, there was the possibility of a different time so far
as it related to conducting the ECG investigation as well as issuance of
receipt of ECG. The committee also dealt with the aspect of conducting surgery
where the Blood Pressure is 150/90 or 150/94
The committee reported that all the emergency equipment was
available at the Hospital. The Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory (CATH lab)
and all life-saving drugs were available in the Hospital and at the time of
cardiac arrest, the treatment was given by the doctor. The committee concluded
that after obtaining the medical fitness report of the patient, the surgery was not
conducted in a traditional manner but it was conducted through laparoscopy, in
which a hole is made to perform the surgery. It was also stated in the report that
after the surgery, the patient did not make any complaint and as such, the
surgery was successful. Thus, it is argued by the defendant from the report of the committee, that
the entire procedure was carried out in terms of the settled principles of
medical science.
The Court Order:
The bench observed that the complaints moved by the
petitioner were taken note of and the Chief Medical and Health Officer vide his
communication dated 8.6.2022 constituted a committee and the said committee,
which consisted of two Doctors including one Doctor being an expert in the field
of surgery, submitted its report and accordingly, in view of the said report the Authorities could have taken no action.
The counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on
the report of the Medical Board, Umaria but the same is of no assistance to him as
the said committee did not inspect the Hospital. However, if the report is perused from any angle nowhere suggests that the Doctors conducted the surgery in negligent and rash manner or the Doctors had not
followed a settled procedure of surgery in terms of medical science. “This
Court is of the considered view that as the onus was on the petitioner to
establish that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the Doctors
concerned and said onus having not been discharged in terms of the law laid
down in Jacob Mathew (supra), this Court is of the view that the petition filed
by the petitioner is devoid of the merits,” the court added.
The bench further mentioned:
It is reiterated that the
Police officials cannot be expected to act in a mechanical manner when they are
clueless about the ailment suffered by the patient, diagnosis by the medical
professional, and the treatment so provided to the patient. The said procedure
falls within the domain of the experts of the medical science and, therefore,
the FIR cannot be lodged in a routine manner in view of the observations made
by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathews (supra).
To view the order, Click on the below link:
