MP High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Case Against Govt Doctor Accused Of Refusing Treatment Over Non-Payment
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a doctor's plea against an order taking cognizance of a complaint filed by deceased woman's husband, over allegations that despite being informed of the patient's critical condition she failed to provide medical assistance and instead demanded money. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 259]
In doing so the court held that a "prima facie case" was disclosed, and whether the doctor actually refused treatment and demanded any money and whether such conduct had any nexus with the death of the deceased must be adjudicated during trial.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held :
"In the present case, the complaint specifically alleges that the deceased was in a critical condition requiring immediate surgical intervention and that the applicant, despite being informed, failed to attend and refused treatment due to non-payment of money. The complainant has reiterated these allegations in his statement and has also produced supporting witnesses during the preliminary inquiry. At this stage, the Court is not required to assess the truthfulness or otherwise of these allegations. The question whether the applicant actually refused treatment, whether any demand of money was made, and whether such conduct had any nexus with the death of the deceased are all matters requiring evidence and adjudication during trial...
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the complaint and the statements recorded in support thereof disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication on merits by the trial Court. The disputed questions raised by the applicant cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction".
A petition was filed by a government doctor seeking to quash an order of the Sessions Judge, wherein his revision petition was dismissed. She had filed a revision plea against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognisance of a private complaint by the deceased woman's husband.
Per the facts, the complainant (respondent no. 1) had filed a private complaint alleging that when he took his wife to the Government Hospital for delivery due to labour pain, he was told that his wife was in serious condition and needed an operation. Per the complainant, the applicant was on emergency duty at the time but did not come to the hospital.
Thereafter, the applicant approached her residence, where she told the complainant to shift his wife to Sudha Nursing Home and demanded ₹50,000 for treatment. Upon stating that the complainant was unable to arrange said amount, the amount was reduced to ₹5,000. However, the complainant could only arrange ₹2,000, upon which the applicant refused to operate.
The complainant's wife was thereafter referred to the Medical College of Jhansi, but she died on the way. Upon examination of preliminary evidence and the complaint copy, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance and registered a criminal case against the applicant.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that she was a government medical officer and was discharging her duties diligently. It was further argued that the complaint was filed with malicious intentions and that she was falsely implicated. She further claimed that her actions were directly connected with her discharging official duty.
The counsel for the applicant further argued that there was no medical evidence showing that the complainant's wife died due to any omission, negligence or refusal of treatment which could be attributed to the applicant.
The counsel for the complainant argued that the applicant failed to attend the government hospital and demanded payment before extending medical assistance. The counsel argued that despite being informed about the serious condition of the patient, the applicant failed to extend the medical assistance and rather insisted upon payment of money.
Examining the complaint, the court noted that the specific allegation was that "the deceased was in a critical condition requiring immediate surgical intervention and that the applicant, despite being informed, failed to attend and refused treatment due to non-payment of money".
The bench noted that at this stage, the court is not required to assess the truthfulness of the allegations. The questions over refusal of treatment or demand for money are to be adjudicated during the trial.
The court rejected the applicant's objection to the lack of evidence, noting that it was not a ground to quash a criminal proceeding when the complaint prima facie discloses a case.
On the issue of requiring prior sanction to prosecute a public servant under Section 197 CrPC, the court noted that at this stage, it was not applicable as the truthfulness of whether the applicant's actions were in discharge of official duties would be considered by the Trial Court upon examination of evidence.
Therefore, the court held that the impugned order of the revisional court does not suffer from illegality or perversity. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Dr Mandavi v Anish Khan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 259