Mohinder Pal, J.@mdashPresent is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ''the Cr.P.C.'') seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. I-C.R. 103 of 2008 dated 24.5.2008 registered with Rajpipla Police Station by respondent No. 2 herein against the petitioner under sections 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 177 and 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts in brief are that the complainant is the person who has given a lift to one Dolatsinh Gohil on his two-wheeler and met with an accident in which said Dolatsinh Gohil died while under treatment in the hospital run by the present petitioner, i.e. Dr. Naishadh V. Parmar. It is stated that, on 22.5.2008, after the accident, said Dolatsinh Gohil was taken to the hospital in an ambulance 108 Emergency Service, in an injured condition. On reaching the hospital and taking into account the condition of the patient, he was admitted as an indoor patient and given required treatment. On the next day, i.e. 23.5.2008, necessary tests were carried on the patient and all the test reports were within normal limits. On the basis of these test reports, the patient was operated for right forearm fracture and fracture of the leg. As the patient complained about anxiety and suffocation, oxygen and intravenous injection was also given. However, despite best efforts by the present petitioner and two other doctors who were summoned to treat the patient in emergency, the patient passed away on 24.5.2008. The dead body was handed over to the family members some of whom were police officials. Later on, the dead body was taken to the Civil Hospital at Surat where post mortem was conducted on the same day at around 4.50 p.m. The report from the hospital regarding treatment given to the patient was called for. Vital organs of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis to F.S.L. and on receipt of report of F.S.L., final opinion regarding death of Dolatsinh Gohil has been given as ''Cardiorespiratory failure as a result of bilateral coronary insufficiency in a known case of old Myocardinal infarction''. After receipt of this report, the person who was driving the two-wheeler has filed this complaint which is pending before this Court. It will be relevant to point out that earlier a complaint was lodged before the police but no action was taken by the police nor any arrest was made. However, at the time of presenting challan in the Court, the petitioner came to know that his name is there in this case and accordingly the present petition for quashing of the complaint has been preferred.
2. Notice of this petition has been given to the complainant who put up appearance through counsel Mr. Nikhil Kariel, and the State is represented by learned APP Mr. H.S. Soni. Learned counsel Mr. Nikhil Kariel is not present today. However, he has been represented through learned counsel Mr. Dhaval Kansara who has argued the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present was a case of accident in which the patient received fractures for which proper treatment has been given. It is submitted that when the present petitioner noticed certain complications, he summoned two renowned doctors of the area and all three of them have given required treatment, the summary of which has been given at page 16 and the report of the same is at page 13. It is submitted that the tests conducted on the patient were within normal limits on the basis of which it could not be made out that the deceased was having heart ailment. Finally it has been submitted that there was not an iota of evidence to show that there was negligence on part of the doctors in the treatment given to the deceased. Finally it is submitted that cause of death of the patient has nothing to do with the treatment for which he was admitted or brought to the hospital.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Dahaval Kansara as well as the State Counsel have submitted that the patient was complaining of pain in the chest and the doctors have not taken proper care at the relevant time to save his life. It is further submitted that operation theater was not having the facility of anesthesia which was necessary in the facts of the present case. Finally it has been submitted that the present petition being devoid of merits is required to be dismissed.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both sides. It is not in dispute that Dolatsinh Gohil met with an accident on 22.5.2008 while being pillion rider on a two-wheeler. Further it is not in dispute that he received fractures on his arm as well as right side of leg and accordingly operation has been performed and nailing has also been done. The tests conducted at the time of treatment are within normal limits and there is no sign of heart ailment or heart attack as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the final report at Annexure-C that ECG, eco cardiogram and other tests have been conducted and all the results were within normal limits. Consent of relatives of the deceased is also taken before conducting the operation and despite due diligence and care taken by the petitioner assisted by two other doctors, unfortunately the patient had died. Further, from the report of F.S.L. Doctor, the cause of death of the patient was cardio-respiratory failure as a result of bilateral coronary insufficiency in a known case of old Myocardial infarction, meaning thereby, that he has suffered heart attack on some earlier occasion and certain muscles of his heart have gone dead and were not functioning. If the patient has died because of bilateral coronary failure and insufficiency of blood flow to heart, the present petitioner cannot be held liable for the negligence in performing surgery for the fractures which have been received in the accident.
6. Decision of the Apex Court in
26. A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. Let it also be noted that a mere accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgment. At times, the professional is confronted with making a choice between the devil and the deep sea and he has to choose the lesser evil. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The usual practice prevalent nowadays is to obtain the consent of the patient or of the person incharge of the patient if the patient is not be in a position to give consent before adopting a given procedure. So long as it can be found that the procedure which was in fact adopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as on that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he chose to follow one procedure and not another and the result was a failure.
27. No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient as the professional reputation of the person is at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his career. Even in civil jurisdiction, the rule of res ipsa loquitur is not of universal application and has to be applied with extreme care and caution to the cases of professional negligence and in particular that of the doctors. Else it would be counter productive. Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a physician or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable per se by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
31. The purpose of holding a professional liable for his act or omission, if negligent, is to make the life safer and to eliminate the possibility of recurrence of negligence in future. Human body and medical science both are too complex to be easily understood. To hold in favour of existence of negligence, associated with the action or inaction of a medical professional, requires an in-depth understanding of the working of a professional as also the nature of the job and of errors committed by chance, which do not necessarily involve the element of culpability.
33. At least three weighty considerations can be pointed out which any forum trying the issue of medical negligence in any jurisdiction must keep in mind. These are: (i) that legal and disciplinary procedures should be properly founded on firm, moral and scientific grounds; (ii) that patients will be better served if the real causes of harm are properly identified and appropriately acted upon; and (iii) that many incidents involve a contribution from more than one person, and the tendency is to blame the last identifiable element in the chain of causation the person holding the ''smoking gun''.
35. The criminal law has invariably placed the medical professionals on a pedestal different from ordinary mortals. The Indian Penal Code enacted as far back as in the year 1860 sets out a few vocal examples. Section 88 in the Chapter on General Exceptions provides exemption for acts not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person''s benefit. Section 92 provides for exemption for acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person without his consent though the acts cause harm to a person and that person has not consented to suffer such harm. There are four exceptions listed in the Section which is not necessary in this context to deal with. Section 93 saves from criminality certain communications made in good faith. To these provisions are appended the following illustrations:-
Section 88
A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under a painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z''s death and intending in good faith, Z''s benefit, performs that operation on Z, with Z''s consent. A has committed no offence.
Section 92
Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z''s death, but in good faith, for Z''s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.
8. A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child''s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child''s benefit. A has committed no offence.
Section 93
A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient''s death....
6.1 From the above discussion it could safely be inferred that a doctor cannot be held criminally responsible for patient''s death unless his negligence or incompetence went beyond the normal limits and he had shown incompetence or utter disregard for the life and safety of the patient while treating him. As is apparent from the line of treatment given by the petitioner to the patient, no negligence or incompetency of the doctor could be seen from the treatment given to the patient.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to
A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. It is not enough to show that there is a body of competent professional opinion which considers that the decision of the accused professional was a wrong decision, provided there also exists a body of professional opinion, equally competent, which supports the decision as reasonable in the circumstances....
8. Similarly, in another case reported in
... Medical professionals are not to be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their duties without fear and apprehension - Malicious prosecution against medical professors/hospitals for extracting uncalled for compensation - Not maintainable...
Keeping in view the condition of the patient, the tests conducted on the patient, the treatment given and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the present petitioner was in no way negligent while performing operation on the deceased Dolatsinh Gohil. Similarly, he or the team of doctors cannot be held liable for the negligence in performing their duties. As a result, the present petition succeeds. The same is allowed. Criminal Complaint bearing No. I-C.R. 103 of 2008 dated 24.5.2008 registered with Rajpipla Police Station filed against the present petitioner stands quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
