Few Doctors Acting In Utter Disregard To Human Life For Pecuniary Advantage, Maligning Noble Profession : Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court recently observed that in India, the position of a Doctor is considered to be next to God, however, certain medical practitioners are acting in utter disregard to human life in expectation of pecuniary advantage to malign in the noble profession."It is true that no sensible professional, more particularly a Doctor would intentionally commit an act or omit to do an act which would result in loss of life. A medical practitioner faced with an emergency situation would definitely try his level best to treat the patient and ordinarily could not leave his patient to die. The position of Doctor in India as accepted by public generally is next to God, but there are certain instances/aberration of course a few in number...," the Court remarked.The bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed thus while dismissing a quashing plea filed by a doctor facing an FIR under Section 304-A IPC (Causing death by negligence) for allegedly committing gross negligence leading to the death of a patient in the year 2009.Though the Court said that whether the deceased died on account of gross negligence of the Petitioner/Doctor is a question of fact which can be answered in the trial after evidence is led, however, perusing the materials collected by the Investigating Agency, it did find a prima facie case against him.The facts in briefAt the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner-Accused (Dr Biswa Mohan Mishra) was attached to Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Hospital as a Medicine Specialist. On July 1, 2009, the deceased was admitted to the Medicine Ward of BMC Hospital and she was under the treatment of the petitioner. As the deceased had low haemoglobin and her condition was getting worse, her uncle requested the petitioner and staff of BMC Hospital to give her a blood transfusion immediately for her treatment, but although they assured her to give the blood, they did not do so and later on, the deceased died in the midnight allegedly due to negligence of the petitioner.In his quashing plea, the petitioner argued that there is absolutely no material against him to make out any prima facie case U/s. 304-A of IPC. It was contended that the petitioner had advised the family members of the deceased to conduct her Ultra Sonography(USG) of the abdomen and the pelvis so that the diagnosis would have been established and treatment could have been properly, however, since the same was not done, the deceased died and for this, the family members of the patient were responsible.On the other hand, the counsel for the state government argued that despite repeated telephone calls and requests made by one Dr Sujata, the petitioner refused to come to attend to the patient, rather he replied to shift the patient to any private Nursing Home which was a clear-cut violation of public duty and constitute gross negligence.In this regard, the Call Details Report (CDR) of the mobile phone number of the petitioner and land phone number of the BMC Hospital and the petitioner was produced before the Court to contend that he had not performed his duty and hence, was squarely liable for gross negligence.Court's observationsTaking into account the facts of the case, the Court, at the outset, referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Dr. Suresh Gupta Vrs. Government of NCT of Delhi and another 2004 wherein it was held that noted if the degree of negligence committed by a doctor is so gross and his act was so reckless as to endanger the life of the patient, he can be made criminally liable for the offence U/S. 304-A of IPC. The Court also referred to the Top Court's decision in the case of Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr 2005.Further, the Court factored into account the medical board's adverse and negative opinion against the doctor in the matter. The Court also took note of the charge sheet which stated that Dr. Sujata has said that despite her repeated telephone request between 10.45 PM to 12.25 AM on 1-2, July 2009 to take proper action, the Petitioner (Doctor B.M. Mishra) refused to come to attend the patient, rather replied over telephone only to shift the patient (deceased) to any private nursing home.Conseuqnelt, finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, the Court dismissed his plea, however, it directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within a period of six months.Case title - Dr. Biswa Mohan Mishra vs. State of Orissa [CRLMC NO.1002 of 2017]Case Citation:Click Here To Read/Download Order

Few Doctors Acting In Utter Disregard To Human Life For Pecuniary Advantage, Maligning Noble Profession : Orissa High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags