Footballer Priya's Death: Madras HC Refuses To Pass Orders On Doctors' Anticipatory Bail Pleas, Asks State To Ensure Their Safety
story
The Madras High Court on Friday refused to pass orders on the anticipatory bail petitions filed by two doctors allegedly connected with the death of footballer Priya. At the same time, the court orally directed the State to ensure the safety of the two doctors and further that their families should not be harassed."We're living in a country where a Doctor, a Covid Warrior, was not given a...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Madras High Court on Friday refused to pass orders on the anticipatory bail petitions filed by two doctors allegedly connected with the death of footballer Priya. At the same time, the court orally directed the State to ensure the safety of the two doctors and further that their families should not be harassed.
"We're living in a country where a Doctor, a Covid Warrior, was not given a decent burial. We must ensure the safety of the doctors as they have been getting threatening calls", Justice AD Jagadish Chandra observed.
Priya died at the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital on 15th November following a botched surgery. Priya had gone through an arthroscopy surgery to repair her ligament tear at the Periyar Nagar Government Peripheral Hospital. Later, she was transferred to the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital due to certain complications. Though a surgery was conducted to repair the tissues, Priya died of multiple organ failure on Tuesday.
Following the incident, an expert committee was appointed and two doctors involved in the botched surgery were suspended. Further, they were charged with a criminal case under Section 304A read with Section 304(ii) IPC for causing death by negligence.
The doctors today approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, fearing arrest and prejudice on the part of the police authorities.
When the bail petitions was taken up, the court observed that the matter was only in its initial stage and that the investigating authorities must be allowed to conduct the investigation properly.
"The incident happened very recently. You must allow the investigating agency to carry out the investigation. This is the very initial stage" the court said.
Opposing the anticipatory bail, State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammad Jinnah submitted that the Expert Committee, which was appointed to probe into the death, in its finding had reported serious lapses on the part of doctors.
The Expert committee was appointed and they submitted their report. Though the deceased told about pain, the doctors did not properly look into the matter...The duty medical officer and CMO had failed to find out the reason for the pain, Jinnah argued.
He further submitted that whether the case fell under medical negligence or criminal negligence had to be ascertained through the investigation and no blanket orders could be given under Section 174 CrPC.
The court adjourned the matter to two weeks. In the meantime, the doctors were given liberty to surrender before the police if they wished to do so.
Case Title: Paul Ramshankar v Inspector Of Police and Somasundar v Inspector of Police
Case No: CRL OP 28484 of 2022 and CRL OP 28487 of 2022