Patna High Court Quashes 22 Yrs Old Criminal Case Against Gynaecologist Accused Of Involvement In Kidney Removal During Surgery

The Patna High Court has quashed all criminal proceedings against a female gynaecologist, in a long-pending medical negligence case dating back to 2003 whereby a railway employee alleged that his right kidney had been unlawfully removed during a surgery conducted at a private nursing home. The petitioner, Dr. Mamta Sinha, was accused solely on the basis of her presence in the operation theatre during a procedure performed by her husband, Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, for the treatment of chyluria.Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, presiding over the case, held, “The version of allegations as set out through complaint petition, nowhere suggests prima facie any cognizable offences as alleged for offences punishable U/s 307, 326, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC qua petitioner. Interestingly, no cognizance was taken for criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120-B of the IPC. Hence, this case also falls under the golden guideline nos. (1), (3) and (7) as settled through Bhajan Lal case (supra).”“Considering the aforesaid factual and legal submissions and by taking note of facts, as admittedly the petitioner is the wife of Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, who conducted the operation upon O.P. No.2 on 13.09.2000, where petitioner was only said to be present and further by taking note of the report of P.G.I., Chandigarh, which is a document of unimpeachable character, therefore, taking note of Devendra Nath Padhi case (supra), Bhajan Lal Case (supra) and other legal reports as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Patna in Sessions Trial No.440 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No.1750(c) of 2003 along with all its consequential proceedings qua petitioner is fit to be set aside/quashed to secure the ends of justice,” Justice Jha added.The above ruling was delivered in a Criminal Miscellaneous whereby Dr. Mamta Sinha had sought the quashing of the order passed by the sessions court which had earlier refused to discharge her under Section 227 of the CrPC in the Sessions Trial.The case arose from a complaint filed in 2003 by Satish Kumar, a postal employee who had undergone treatment for chyluria at Adarsh Nursing Home in 2000. According to the complaint, he initially received a normal abdominal ultrasonography report but was later diagnosed with chyluria by Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha and advised to undergo surgery. Dr. Mamta Sinha was present in the operation theatre as part of the medical team. After the surgery, the complainant claimed his medical condition worsened and that subsequent scans eventually showed the right kidney as not visible. He alleged that his kidney had been removed without consent.The complainant approached various medical institutions over the years, culminating in a 2016 report by PGIMER, Chandigarh, which found that the right kidney was not removed but was “shrunken and severely atrophic.” Dr. Mamta Sinha, however, was not found to have played an active role in the medical treatment beyond being present during the surgery.The Court, in its judgement, relied on a 2016 medical board report from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, which confirmed that the complainant's right kidney had not been removed, but was severely atrophic and shrunken. The Court found that despite the gravity of the allegations, Dr. Mamta Sinha had no assigned role in the treatment or surgical decision-making. Her name surfaced in the complaint only because she was present alongside her husband during the operation. As recorded in paragraph 28, the Court held that her presence, absent any act or omission that could be construed as culpable, could not form the basis for prosecution.The Court concluded, “the petitioner is the wife of Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, who conducted the operation upon O.P. No.2 on 13.09.2000, where petitioner was only said to be present and further by taking note of the report of P.G.I., Chandigarh, which is a document of unimpeachable character, therefore, taking note of Devendra Nath Padhi case (supra), Bhajan Lal Case (supra) and other legal reports as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 as passed by learned Additional Sessions JudgeX, Patna in Sessions Trial No.440 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No.1750(c) of 2003 along with all its consequential proceedings qua petitioner is fit to be set aside/quashed to secure the ends of justice.”Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-X, Patna, while allowing the petition.Case Title: Dr. Mamta Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 46Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27653 of 2024Click Here To Read Judgement

Patna High Court Quashes 22 Yrs Old Criminal Case Against Gynaecologist Accused Of Involvement In Kidney Removal During Surgery

Bhavya Singh

Tags