Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Doctor Accused Of Causing Death By Botched Up Hair Transplant

Justice Sivagnanam said the matter needs to be adjudicated on the facts of the case which the High Court could not do under Section 482 CrPC. The court added that questions such as fitness of the centre to do hair transplants and competency of the doctor to perform the surgery had to be looked into, which required enquiry. Thus, finding that the plea did not meet the parameters for quashing the proceedings as laid down by the Supreme court, the court dismissed the petitions.

"It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is clear from the fact that there is a question of fact involved whether the centre is fit to do any hair transplant and whether the petitioner is competent to do hair transplant. Therefore, it cannot be adjudicated in this proceedings," the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by Dr Vinith who had performed a hair transplant surgery on a patient. The case of prosecution was that after treatment, since there was a rise in the patient's temperature, he was taken to a nearby Guest Hospital and later to CMC Vellore Hospital where he died two days later. It was alleged that the patient had died due to hair transplant being done by untrained doctor and without necessary facilities at the clinic. Thus, he was charged with Section 304(ii) of IPC.

Relying on the principle of Causa Causans, the Doctor contended that though the transplant was performed on May 15, 2016, the patient died only on May 17, 2016 and thus death was not proximate to the treatment given. He also argued that the complaint was given only after 18 days which showed that it was an afterthought and ill motivated. He also argued that even if there was negligence, it was not gross to attract the provisions of IPC.

The doctor also argued that a doctor could not be made liable for medical negligence merely because the patient did not respond to treatment. He pointed out that when bringing in a charge for criminal negligence, the ingredient of mens rea could not be excluded and that in the present case, no mens rea could be attributed.

The Government Advocate, on the other hand, pointed out that Hair Transplant Centre was not fit to do any hair transplant or any other medical procedures and the doctor was not a competent person for doing the hair transplant. Reliance was placed on the report submitted by the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services in which it was opined that the centre was not properly sterile and it was licensed by the Chennai Corporation as a Hair Cutting Salon. It was argued that the High Court could not embark upon appreciation of evidence while considering petition under Section 482 CrPC and requested to dismiss the petition.

Looking into the materials placed, the court pointed out that the issue involved was whether the Centre was fit to do any hair transplant or other medical procedures and whether the petitioner was qualified doctor for performing the hair transplant. Since these issues had to be adjudicated by the trial court, the court dismissed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Sairam

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.L.Baskaran Govt. Advocate (Crl.side), Mr.V.Sivalingam

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

Case Title: Dr Vinith v State and Others

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.20954 of 2018