Quash petition against complaint
Initially, a complaint was lodged with the All Women Police Station, Chidambaram, but they failed to register any case and take any action. Hence, the above private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the respondent, husband of Sudha, before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, for offence under Sections 307, 201 & 204 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 20(A) r/w 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the respondent, his wife Sudha and one Dr.Balamourougan, Assistant Professor in Jipmer Hospital, Puducherry and on perusal of the documents, medical records, found the above said offences made out against the accused and issued summons. Challenging the same, the above Quash Petitions filed.
Facts of the case
16. From the documents and statements, it is seen that for the allegation of not handing over the medical records i.e., case sheet, surgery report, discharge report, Sudha, wife of the respondent made a complaint to the Tamil Nadu Medical Council on 17.03.2014. In this regard, the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, by communication, dated 15.04.2014 directed the Doctors to send medical record to Sudha. The Doctors, by reply, dated 27.04.2014 informed that the medical records already furnished to one Mr.Navaseelan, brother of the respondent on 04.07.2012 as requested by the respondent. From the reply, it is seen that the Inspector, All Women Police Station, Chidambaram conducted an enquiry in this regard. All the Doctors, A1 to A5 were enquired and they gave written explanation on 01.11.2012. Again on 03.12.2012, the Doctors appeared before the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Welfare Services and Family Welfare, Cuddalore with medical records and gave explanation. On the complaint of respondent, dated 21.11.2013, the Tamil Nadu Medical Council enquired, by explanation, dated 22.12.2013, all details furnished, again another complaint, dated 24.03.2014 for not furnishing medical records made to the Tamil Nadu Medical Council which was properly replied with contemporary records, thereafter, the complaint was closed. In this case, the respondent withheld earlier complaints, enquiry and the report of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council.
Guidelines to prosecute medical professionals
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jacob Mathew case had dealt in detail with regard to the medical negligence as a tort and as a crime. In this Landmark Judgment, guidelines are issued to be followed before prosecuting the medical professionals.
Complainant must show the doctor lacking necessary skill for performing operation
19. Thus, looking the case against the petitioners, it can be safely held that there is nothing to show the accused lack necessary skill for performing operation to the respondent. Further, there is no gross negligence with an intention to cause harm. Under criminal law, the degree of negligence required is of very high degree and the negligence must be culpable or gross negligence and not the negligence merely based upon an error of Judgment. In this case, no satisfaction demonstratively shown before issuance of summons. While summoning medical professionals for rendering professional work, caution to be shown, more so, when summons issued for a trial of Session case need demonstrative satisfaction. In this case, no such satisfaction shown. 20.In view of the above, this Court quashes the proceedings in P.R.C.No.3 of 2014 and C.M.P.No.578 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Party
Dr.Padmini vs. Senthilkumar – Crl.O.P.Nos: 13133 & 19497 of 2014 – 28.04.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1036832
