'Systematic Attempt To Mint More Money': Gujarat HC Denies Bail To Doctor Accused Of Performing Forced Angioplasties To Claim Govt Funds

The Gujarat High Court has rejected the bail plea of a cardiologist accused of performing angioplasty upon healthy persons in a bid to get funds from the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) scheme for a private hospital.

In doing so the court observed that the material on record indicated a "strong prima facie" case against the petitioner where his involvement in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out. It also agreed with the prosecution's contention that this was not a case of mere medical negligence but a systematic attempt to "mint more money" under the PMJAY scheme from the Government. 

It was alleged that the petitioner–Dr. Prashant Vazirani had conducted angioplasty on seven patients some of them without medical necessity or consent, and two of them died as a result of complications following the procedures, in order exploit the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) scheme for financial gain. He was booked in an FIR registered under BNS Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 110(Attempt to commit culpable homicide), 336(2) (forgery), 340(2)(Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine), 318(cheating), 61(criminal conspiracy). 

Justice M. R. Mengdey in his order observed:

"The present is a case of classic example of the abuse of the scheme floated by the Government for the welfare of the general public. The PMJAY scheme has been in place to provide quality medical treatment to the public at large at a minimal cost. The expenses for the treatment of the patients under the PMJAY scheme is borne by the Government and the same is reimbursed to the hospital concerned by the Government. It is this scheme which has been allegedly misused in the present case for fulfilling materialistic ambitions of a few...It is sought to be contended that the expert body of PMJAY scheme had granted approval for performance of angioplasty after seeing the report which was uploaded by the hospital. However, the reports which were submitted to the concerned authority themselves appear to be doubtful. The expert body of the U N Mehta Institute has clearly opined in case of some of the  patients that either no procedure of angioplasty was necessary to be performed or only one stent was required to be inserted to the patients who were inserted more than one stent. If the authority who had granted approval for the procedure despite these glaring facts, then their role also requires investigation"

"The present applicant has played a pivotal role in the present offence as in the first place it was the present applicant who had performed the procedure of angioplasty on the patients in question and as observed herein above, in some cases, though not required. The witnesses i.e. the patients in their respective statements have categorically stated that when they expressed their disinclination to the present applicant, there was heavy persuasion by the present applicant for undergoing the procedure by showing the threat of their death. The involvement of the present applicant in the present offence cannot be ruled out at this stage, since the material available on record indicates a strong prima facie case against the present applicant," the court added. 

Rejecting the petitioner's contention that no ingredients of Section 105 BNS is made out the court observed that the "material on record" makes the court believe at this stage, "that two unfortunate deaths were not natural".

The court therefore said that it is not possible for it to conclude that "offence punishable under Section 105 of B.N.S. is not made out". It further observed:

"Moreover, the manner in which the things things have place reflects the seriousness of the offence. Be that as it may, the fact remains that seven patients were forced to undergo the procedure of angioplasty without their wish and without any need in some cases. The material on record also suggests that no proper post operational care was taken and some of the patients were transferred to the general ward after the procedure. There was no specialist doctor to look after the patients in case of any emergency. Learned Public Prosecutor is right in contending that this is not the case of simple medical negligence. In fact, it is a systematic attempt to mint more money under the PMJAY scheme from the Government". 

The case arose after a medical camp was organised at Borisana village on 10.11.2024 by Khyati Hospital, where 89 people underwent checkups. Out of these, 19 patients were referred to Khyati Hospital for further examination. From these, seven were advised to undergo angioplasty, and two of them later died. The FIR was lodged by In-charge CDMO cum Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Sola, at Ahmedabad.

The Court took note of the statements of several patients. The Court recorded the statement of one patient who said that “after the angiography Dr. Prashant Vazirani i.e. the present applicant informed him that his arteries were blocked and asked him to undergo the procedure of angioplasty, to which he had denied. Despite the same, the procedure was performed upon him.”

The court further noted another patient's statement who stated that “Doctor Prashant Vazirani had operated him for angioplasty and prior thereto it was informed that he was having serious heart problems… He was only suffering from constipation.”

The Court also recorded the statement of another doctor who had stated, “those history forms had been altered by the hospital and the opinion of 2DECHO and cardio reference was added subsequently.”

The Court observed that “these facts indicate that the history forms which were filled at the medical camp at village Borisana, were altered and the advice for some tests were added subsequently.”

The Court relied on expert opinions from U.N. Mehta Institute for Cardiology & Research Centre. It noted that in the case of one of the deceased, “a proper indication for coronary angiogram or coronary angioplasty was not established or mentioned… The discrepancy was noted in CAG report. The report mentions mid LCX 80% stenosis while in angiography video there is 30-40% disease in OM branch which is considered as non-critical… There is no post procedure ECG attached with the file. No post procedure cardiologist note could be found.”

The Court noted, “The material available on record indicates that the reports of angiography were prepared in the handwriting of the present applicant. The material on record also indicates that those reports were also changed after the inquiry authority had called the applicant and the other accused for inquiry. Thus, those reports were incorrect and manipulated.”

It thus dismissed the bail plea. 

Case Title: Prashant S/o Prakash Harishchandra Vazirani vs. State of Gujarat

Click Here To Read Judgement