Can't Prosecute Doctors For Medical Negligence Without Independent Expert Medical Opinion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Quashing criminal proceedings against doctors accused of medical negligence leading to the death of a woman after childbirth, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has cautioned against subjecting medical professionals to criminal trials without credible expert scrutiny.

Justice Manisha Batra said, "The investigating officer and the private complainant could not always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A of IPC. The criminal process once initiated subjects the medical professional to serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment."

The doctor had to seek bail to escape arrest, which may or may not be granted to him. At the end he may be exonerated by acquittal or discharge but the loss which he has suffered in his reputation cannot be compensated by any standards, the Court added.

"The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion, said the bench.

The complaint was filed by the husband of the deceased woman, alleging that his wife, who was pregnant, was admitted to Dhawan Nursing Home on the night of 01.01.2015 after she developed labour pains. According to the complainant, the doctors initially assured a normal delivery but later conducted surgery, following which she gave birth to twin daughters.

It was alleged that post-delivery, the woman suffered excessive bleeding, her condition deteriorated, and she was shifted to another hospital where doctors allegedly informed that the surgery had not been properly performed. She ultimately died on 05.01.2015, and the complainant attributed her death to the alleged negligence of the doctors.

On the basis of preliminary evidence, the Magistrate summoned the doctors to face trial for offences under Section 304-A read with Section 34 IPC.

The doctors challenged the summoning order, contending that there was no medical evidence suggesting negligence on their part.

Dr. Rana Ranjit Singh, a senior medical professional who supervised the treatment at another hospital, categorically stated that there was no negligence, and that the patient suffered from postpartum hemorrhage and disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court in a writ petition filed by the complainant, a medical board constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Tarn Taran, had conducted an inquiry and opined that there was no lapse or negligence by the doctors.

A complaint filed by the complainant before the Consumer Forum had also been dismissed in default.

Relying on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, the petitioners argued that criminal prosecution against doctors cannot be permitted unless supported by a credible, independent medical opinion establishing gross negligence.

The High Court reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew, emphasising that Criminal negligence requires a much higher degree of negligence, amounting to gross or reckless conduct.

A simple error of judgment, accident, or unsuccessful treatment does not constitute criminal negligence, it added.

On a perusal of the impugned summoning order, the Court revealed that the Magistrate, while issuing process against the petitioners, had relied upon the statements of the complainant, his brother- in-law Gursewak Singh and Dr. Rana Ranjit Singh.

The bench noted that the victim had admittedly died after her delivery and during the course of her treatment, she had suffered from postpartum hemorrhage just after delivering twin daughters. The complainant had filed a complaint before the police.

However as per enquiry conducted by a team of two doctors by the there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners, it added.

"No finding has been recorded that the medical evidence produced on record pointed out that it was a case of negligence on the part of the petitioners that resulted into death of the victim. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, is not proved to have properly appreciated the evidence produced on record, especially the medical evidence in the form of testimony of CW-3, which did not attribute any negligence to the petitioners," the judge observed.

Stating that the evidence produced on record before the jurisdictional Magistrate cannot be stated to be prima facie sufficient to support the allegations of medical negligence and rashness on the part of the petitioners, the Court quashed the complaint and proceedings.

Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners.

Title: Vijay Kumar Dhawan and others v. Gurpreet Singh

Click here to read the order