Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Tis Hazari Court of Delhi recently in a medical negligence case held that an FIR cannot be lodged on the whims and fancies of the complainant guided by unfounded and unsubstantiated assumptions only to satisfy his discontentment with the treatment of his child.

Additional Sessions Judge Dheeraj Mor set aside the trial court's order directing the registration of an FIR against a doctor over the alleged issue of medical negligence.

The complainant had instituted an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC against the petitioner and doctors of LNJP Hospital for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 468 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The allegations in the complaint were that the complainant's son was born in 2003 at LNJP Hospital and was diagnosed with a blockage/layer in the urinary bladder. The son remained under treatment given by the petitioner from 2004 to 2005. 

It was further alleged that the scan in 2003 was performed regarding the functioning of the kidneys of the complainant's son and as per the report, his kidneys were found normal with partial mechanical obstruction. In 2004 and 2005, more kidney scans were conducted where the complainant's son's left kidney was found enlarged, and its glomerular function was found mildly impaired.

Furthermore, it was alleged that the complainant's son remained under the treatment of the petitioner and suffered various surgeries and procedures which affected his health. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner concealed from him that the condition of his son was not improving.

Additionally, the complainant alleged that the left kidney of his son was removed without seeking his consent and the petitioner even fabricated documents to cover up his illegal acts. He further alleged that even a piece of kidney tube pipe was left inside the body of his son which resulted in an infection and that the case sheet/report of his son was also concealed, which was claimed to be misplaced.

Given the above, several and separate inquiries into the allegations made by the complainant were conducted by Delhi Medical Council and National Human Rights Commission but no medical negligence was attributed to the petitioner in them and therefore, no cognizable offence was found to have been committed.

Advocate Namit Saxena appearing for the petitioner informed the court that in the inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of India, it was opined that the surgeon/petitioner exercised a reasonable degree of commitment in treating the difficult case of the son of the complainant.

Over the above-mentioned issue, the court opined that the trial court had wrongly observed that the purpose of the inquiry by the said committee was only to ascertain whether there was any procedural irregularity. On the contrary, the said committees have comprehensively analyzed and inquired the allegations of the complainant regarding negligence by the doctors of Lok Nayak hospital including the petitioner, court noted.

Court further noted that the ill preservation of removed kidney of the son of the complainant and the misplacement of part of his treatment record did not fall within the ambit of any culpable act.

In view of the above, court said that the same could at the most be a case of civil negligence, for which an FIR could not be directed to be lodged.

Case Title: Dr. Y. K. Sarin vs. Ravinder Nath Dubey & Anr.