While quashing the entire criminal proceeding against a doctor who had been accused of giving wrong advice to terminate a pregnancy and of not returning the consultation amount, the Patna High Court has ruled that a dispute arising from professional medical opinion does not become a criminal case simply because the complainant later alleges that the advice was wrong. The Court explained that a dispute arising out of medical opinion cannot be turned into a criminal prosecution for cheating or criminal breach of trust unless the complaint clearly shows dishonest intention from the very beginning and the essential statutory ingredients of the offences are made out.
The Court clarified that a criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be sustained merely because a doctor allegedly gave incorrect medical advice, unless the complaint clearly discloses the statutory ingredients of those offences. For Section 420 IPC, there must be material showing deception and fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very inception. For Section 406 IPC, there must be clear entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation.
Also Read Twin Birth in First Pregnancy Doesn’t Bar Maternity Leave for Second Child: Telangana HC
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra after examining the complaint materials, found that the core allegation against the doctor was only that she gave an incorrect medical opinion regarding the pregnancy and advised medical termination. The Court specifically noted that even the complaint itself showed that this opinion was given after the complainant had been advised to undergo an ultrasound and the opinion was based on the ultrasound report produced before the doctor. In the Court’s view, these allegations at best raised an issue about correctness of medical judgment, but did not show any deliberate or dishonest design from the very beginning.
The Court further observed that the complaint lacked the basic ingredients of both offences invoked. There was no material showing entrustment of property so as to attract Section 406 IPC. Similarly, there was no allegation showing false representation, deception, or dishonest intention at the inception so as to make out cheating under Section 420 IPC. The Court also noticed that the alleged payment of Rs. 2,500 was not supported by contemporaneous material, and even the earlier legal notice sent by the complainant did not mention such payment. The Court additionally recorded that no independent medical opinion or supporting material had been produced to prima facie show that the doctor’s advice was knowingly false or motivated by dishonesty.
The High Court treated the dispute as one essentially arising out of medical advice rendered in a professional setting, without any prima facie material indicating criminal breach of trust or cheating. It held that allowing such prosecution to continue in these circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Also Read Gujarat HC Protects Identity of HIV-Positive School Founder Alleging Police Disclosure of HIV Status
Briefly, the case arose from a complaint filed by Priyanka Jaiswal against Dr. Renu Rana, a medical practitioner, before the Samastipur court. According to the complaint, the complainant visited Dr. Rana’s clinic on March 05, 2013 during pregnancy-related complications. It was alleged that after seeing the ultrasound report, Dr. Rana advised termination of pregnancy and allegedly took Rs. 2,500 for that purpose. The complainant stated that she did not undergo the procedure after consulting family members, but did consume medicines prescribed by the doctor, after which her health deteriorated. She later consulted another doctor, was told that the foetus was healthy, and eventually gave birth to a healthy girl child on Oct 26, 2013. On this basis, she alleged that the doctor had given wrong medical advice and had also retained the amount paid by her.
On the complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Dr. Renu Rana challenged that order in revision, but the Sessions Judge dismissed the revision and affirmed the cognizance order. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of both orders and the entire criminal proceeding.
