Punjab and Haryana High Court denies Bail to quack accused of causing patient death by wrong treatment
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana
High Court recently denied bail to an unlicensed medical practitioner accused
of causing the death of a man in 2022 due to improper treatment. The decision, delivered by Justice Namit Kumar, highlighted that the investigation revealed that
the accused had been practicing medicine without the professional
qualifications required by law.
According to the court, his
actions extended beyond negligent medical treatment. After the victim, passed
away, he allegedly attempted to destroy evidence by discarding the body near a
paying guest accommodation in Gurugram’s Manesar area.
The incident came to
light when the uncle of the deceased reported that his wrongful treatment had
led to his nephew’s death. Since his nephew had died in suspicious
circumstances, he made a request to the police to conduct the
post-mortem. After the post-mortem, he saw CCTV footage at the paying guest facility which revealed that his nephew had a fever. He was getting himself
treated by the accused doctor of Alam Clinic in the village of Aliyar.
On 26.09.2022 also his nephew had gone to the
doctor and he alleged that his nephew had died due to the wrong treatment given, the accused along with his friend had kept the dead body on
the road near the paying guest facility. It was also alleged that the accused
does not have any professional degree and an FIR was lodged under the same
charges.
Learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner was innocent and
had been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the
petitioner had just administered a Monosef Injection 500 mg to the deceased,
which is an anti-biotic. He submitted that the deceased had died a natural
death as per the post-mortem report dated 28.09.2022. He further stated that
the cause of death in this case is ‘Asphyxia’ due to blockage of respiratory passages.
He argued that the deceased seems to have died on account of food
particles/vomit particles, which got struck in his throat/veins, which resulted
in destructing the breathing passage of his body and he succumbed to death and
no injury whatsoever has been found on the body of deceased.
The petitioner (accused
in the case) submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that the
petitioner had guilty intuition to commit the alleged offense, therefore, no
motive is attributed to him, which is an essential ingredient of Section
304(ii) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). It was also contended
that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 1 year and 9 months and that two
of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case.
The learned State counsel
has opposed the prayer for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner was practising as a doctor without holding any
professional degree, as required by law and he had administered an injection to
the deceased after which he succumbed to death. He further submitted that the
petitioner along with the co-accused had thrown the dead body of the deceased on
the road in front of the shop, in order to destroy the evidence, therefore, he
does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
“It is to be seen
by the trial court as to whether the petitioner was a registered medical
practitioner or not and running his clinic or not, by way of evidence to be
adduced before the trial Court. Concededly, a person has lost his life,”
the Court said after considering the submissions.
“Despite the
existence of laws and regulations, many individuals practice medicine without
proper qualifications or registration, putting patient’s lives at risk and
consequence thereof, misdiagnosis and improper treatment leading to worsening
of patient conditions. They are a menace to public health in India”, it
added.
Stating that a person who
committed an offence under section 304 Part-ll IPC, is liable to be awarded
imprisonment for up to ten years and the period of custody undergone by the
petitioner is only 1 year 9 months, and 29 days as of now, the bench has denied
regular bail to the accused. The High Court’s refusal
to grant bail underscores the severity of the charges against Faheem and raises
broader concerns about the dangers posed by unqualified individuals practicing
medicine without proper credentials.
To view the order, click on the link below:
