Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Acupressure Practitioner For Unauthorisedly Treating Patient Resulting In Leg Amputation

In the present case treatment has been given by the petitioner-accused for a disease, which was beyond her knowledge and qualification, for which she was not authorised and none of her educational qualifications brought to the notice of this Court are recognized by the competent authorities like Medical Council of India or any State Medical Board to advance the practising in alternate medicine for the ailment of gangrene.

The bench comprising Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that even according to her qualifications i.e., acupressure and ElectroHomeopathy Medical System, she still had a duty to use "reasonable degree of care and skill" and had an implied undertaking not to breach such duty to give a way to negligence which resulted into huge damage that cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever.

This Court is sanguine of the fact that the petitioner-accused, even according to her possessed qualification for acupressure and ElectroHomeopathy Medical System, has a duty to act with a reasonable degree of care and skill has an implied undertaking of not to give a chance for breach of such duty, has given a cause of action for negligence which resulted into huge damage to the father of the complainant, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever.

In the instant case, accused gave the treatment which was beyond her knowledge and qualification and for which she was not authorised and her negligence led to the spread of the disease resulting in amputation of the leg as a last resort.

Such loss will not only disable a person from routine course of his life but will also keep on pricking in his mind to cause consistent mental cruelty and harassment apart from embarrassment in daily routine in the society at large.

She was booked under Section 338 (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating) of IPC and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act.

In the light of the aforesaid discussions and the facts on record, finding no merit in the present petition, the court rejected anticipatory bail to the petitioner considering that that her custodial interrogation is necessary in the investigation.

Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed.

Case Title: MAMTA RANI VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 193