In a criminal writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Joint Secretary (Law), Law Department, Secretariat against the petitioner and her husband for offences punishable under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ashish S. Chavan allowed the petition and quashed the FIR as well as the proceedings against the petitioner.
The petitioner was a senior obstetrician and gynaecologist with more than three decades of clinical experience. She, along with her husband, who was a renowned gynaecologist and laparoscopist, owned and managed Ankur Nursing Home in Mapusa, Goa, since 1989. In June 2023, a 41-year-old woman started taking treatment at Kolhapur to conceive a child. In July, she became pregnant and was told by a doctor that she required a cervical stitch as she had a twin pregnancy.
On 11-10-2023, the woman approached the petitioner’s husband, who put the cervical stitch as required. On 22-12-2023, the woman was admitted to Ankur Nursing Home due to mild spotting and blood-stained discharge. Diagnosed as a case of threatened miscarriage, all necessary treatment was given to her. On 27-12-2023, the woman delivered both her twins. Being underweight, both babies were placed in the neonatal intensive care unit of a neighbouring hospital.
Due to the likelihood of surgical intervention for removing the placenta, the woman was shifted to GMC, and on 30-12-2023, the woman died due to an obstetric haemorrhage, which superimposed sepsis. The woman’s husband made a complaint before the police alleging medical negligence against the petitioner, her husband, and another doctor.
Acting on the said complaint, the Dean of Goa Medical College constituted a committee, and a report was submitted, wherein it was stated that evidence of medical negligence was present in the case. Based on these findings, the said FIR was registered. The petitioners contended that the constitution of the committee that conducted the inquiry was fundamentally flawed, and hence their findings could not be taken into consideration.
The Court found it imperative to refer to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 422 and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, and stated that the Supreme Court had categorically differentiated the jurisprudential concept of negligence in civil and criminal law by observing that what may be negligence in criminal law may not be negligence in civil law.
Further, the Court stated that to prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law, it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something that no medical professional, in the exercise of ordinary sense and prudence, would have done or failed to do. It was stated that the negligence or incompetence alleged against the medical professional must show disregard for the life and safety of his patient so as to amount to a crime against the State.
The Court noted that, as per the petitioner’s statement given before the committee, she had no involvement whatsoever in the clinical management of the woman and that she was completely managed by her husband as well as the hospital staff. The Court found that none of the medical professionals’ statements recorded by the committee mentioned any role of the petitioner.
Thus, while allowing the petition, the Court found that no case of recklessness or gross negligence had been made out against the petitioner and quashed the said FIR as well as the proceedings against the petitioner.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Ms. Caroline Collasso, Mr. K. Poulekar, Mr. Sahil Lavande
For Respondents – Mr. S. Karpe (APP), Ms. Maria Simone Correia, Mr. Arjun Naik
