Karnataka High Court Quashes Medical Negligence Complaint In Absence Of Expert Opinion
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a medical negligence case registered against three doctors as the police failed to support the charge by obtaining an expert's opinion. A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the quashing petition observing, “If the Medical Council of India (MCI) while entertaining the appeal has concluded that there is no medical negligence,...
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a medical negligence case registered against three doctors as the police failed to support the charge by obtaining an expert's opinion.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the quashing petition observing, “If the Medical Council of India (MCI) while entertaining the appeal has concluded that there is no medical negligence, I am of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.”
Complainant Laeeque Ahmed had lodged the complaint alleging that petitioners and the management of Vivekananda Maternity Hospital did not follow the standard protocol and guidelines while treating Asma Kousar who was admitted with a complaint of back ache and leaking per vaginum. Thus alleged medical negligence.
The police on investigation filed its chargesheet against the petitioners under Section 338, 201, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.
The petitioners argued that even if material on record in the form of charge sheet is accepted in entirety, no case of negligence is made out. Reliance was placed on the order passed by the Medical Council of India (MCI), preceded by an expert's opinion, wherein the MCI allowed the appeal and confirmed only that portion of the order passed by the Karnataka Medical Council wherein the petitioners were warned.
It was also argued that except statements of interested witnesses, the charge sheet is not supported by any expert's opinion.
Significantly, in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, (2005) Supreme Court had observed that a medical negligence complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor.
The Bench on going through the records expressed surprise that the charge sheet is not supported by any expert's opinion. It also noted that to counter this charge sheet, the petitioners' had placed heavy reliance on the expert's opinion secured by the Ethics Committee.
“The Ethics Committee having taken cognizance of the expert's opinion also found that the allegation of medical negligence is not substantiated. Based on expert's opinion and the recommendation by the Ethics Committee, the MCI who is the Apex Body vide order dated 12.6.2017 has allowed the appeal by only issuing a warning to the concerned Doctors as was done by the Karnataka Medical Council.”
Then it held, “If the allegation of medical negligence is taken away as indicated in the expert's opinion, the entire edifice on which the charge sheet is submitted goes. Therefore, if petitioners' are compelled to face the prosecution for the aforesaid offences, no purpose will be served and if permitted, the same would amount to abuse of process. In the light of the expert's opinion indicating that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners, I am of the view that this is a fit case where proceedings are liable to be quashed.”
Accordingly, it allowed the petition.
Case Title: Dr Shyamala Bai & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2264 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
Date of Order: 28-06-2023
Appearance: Advocate V D Raviraj for petitioners
HCGP Vinayaka V S for R1.
Advocate D Domnic James for R2.