Medical Negligence Case Requires Prima Facie Proof Of Gross Negligence Supported By Medical Opinion: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that criminal prosecution against a doctor for alleged medical negligence cannot continue in the absence of prima facie material disclosing gross negligence supported by competent medical opinion. The Court observed that permitting such prosecution would cause manifest injustice and undermine the distinction between civil liability and criminal culpability.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha quashed the criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of causing a patient's death through negligent treatment.

The petitioner had challenged an order dated December 12, 2017 passed by the Sub-Judge-II-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, dismissing his application for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Complaint Case No. 2557 of 2012.

The complaint was filed by the deceased patient's son. According to the complaint, the deceased fractured his hand after falling near a hand pump and consulted the petitioner at Sari in Samastipur. The petitioner allegedly advised that he be admitted to Jagdamba Nursing Home in Patna for surgery.

It was alleged that the petitioner forcibly collected ₹18,000 instead of ₹10,000, operated upon the patient against his wishes, and administered excessive anaesthesia and a poisonous injection, causing him to become unconscious. The patient was later taken to Patna Medical College and Hospital, where he died. Cognizance was taken against the petitioner for cheating (Section 420), causing death by negligence (Section 304-A), and intentional insult (Section 504) of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and that no offence was made out. He submitted that the patient was admitted to Jagdamba Nursing Home on August 7, 2012 and was discharged the following day at the complainant's request. The operation was undertaken only after conducting the necessary tests but was stopped after considering the patient's condition.

It was further submitted that after discharge, the patient was admitted to Arvind Hospital and was later taken to the emergency ward of Patna Medical College and Hospital, where he died on August 10, 2012. The petitioner argued that complications could have developed during treatment at Arvind Hospital, since the patient had been discharged from Jagdamba Nursing Home in good condition.

The petitioner also stated that he was a qualified orthopaedic surgeon who had completed his MBBS from R.M.C.H., Ranchi and MS in Orthopaedics from P.M.C.H., and had been appointed as a lecturer in the Orthopaedics Department of P.M.C.H. through the Bihar Public Service Commission.

The complainant opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court had considered the available material and correctly concluded that the allegations were not groundless, requiring the petitioner to face trial for causing death by negligence.

Referring to the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings and the Supreme Court's decision in Jacob Mathew, the High Court emphasised the distinction between civil negligence and criminal culpability in cases concerning medical treatment. The Court observed:

“The jurisprudence governing medical negligence consistently recognizes the distinction between civil liability and criminal culpability, lest the fear of criminal prosecution erodes independent medical decision making and adversely impacts public health care.”

It further said:

“In the absence of prima facie material disclosing gross negligence supported by competent medical opinion permitted the prosecution to continue would result in manifest injustice and defeat the very object of criminal justice system.”

The Bench also observed that Article 21 of the Constitution protects not only the patient's right to life but also a medical professional's right to practise with dignity and fairness and to be protected against arbitrary criminal prosecution.

Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, the Court set aside the order dated December 12, 2017 and quashed all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

Case Title: Dr. Govind Mohan Jee v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4096 of 2019

Appearance: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh appeared for the Petitioner. Md. Fahimuddin appeared for the Opposite Party. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav appeared for the Complainant

Click Here To Read/Download Order