No proof of ‘gross’ negligence: Patna High Court cancels 2012 case against surgeon

The case dates back to September 6, 2012, when one Satish Yadav filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging negligence in the treatment of his father, Bindeshwar Yadav. According to the complaint, Bindeshwar fractured his hand after falling near a hand pump on August 5, 2012. He consulted the doctor in Samastipur, who advised admission to the nursing home in Patna for surgery.

The complainant alleged that although the surgery was initially expected to cost Rs 10,000, the doctor forcibly collected Rs 18,000. He further claimed that excessive anaesthesia and a poisonous injection were administered during the operation, after which the patient became unconscious.

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha noted the Supreme Court has consistently held that criminal prosecution of doctors requires a much higher threshold than civil negligence.

The patient was later shifted to Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), where he died. On the basis of the complaint and statements recorded during inquiry, the magistrate took cognisance of offences under sections 420 (cheating), 304A (causing death by negligence) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code.

Doctor denies allegations

The doctor challenged the criminal proceedings before the high court, arguing that he had been wrongly accused. His counsel submitted that the patient was admitted to the nursing home on August 7, 2012, and discharged the following day at the family’s request. According to the defence, all necessary medical tests had been conducted before surgery and the operation itself was discontinued after the patient’s condition deteriorated.

The petitioner said that after discharge, the patient was admitted to another private hospital before being shifted to PMCH, where he died on August 10, 2012. It was argued that any complications that arose later could not automatically be attributed to the petitioner.

Supreme Court precedents

Justice Jha relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab, Kusum Sharma v Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor and other decisions dealing with criminal liability of medical professionals.

The high court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that criminal prosecution of doctors requires a much higher threshold than civil negligence. It underlined that a private complaint alleging criminal medical negligence should ordinarily be supported by the opinion of another competent doctor establishing rashness or negligence before criminal proceedings are allowed to continue.

The court found that the complainant had not produced any competent medical opinion supporting allegations of gross negligence. Observing that criminal negligence must be of a “gross” nature (reckless or irresponsible conduct with complete disregard for patient safety), the court held that allowing the prosecution to continue without such material would amount to serious injustice and defeat the very object of the criminal justice system.

It further observed that Article 21 protects not only a patient’s right to life but also a doctor’s right to “practice the profession with dignity, fairness and protection against arbitrary criminal prosecution.”

Proceedings set aside

Invoking its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the legal process, the high court set aside the December 12, 2017 order of the additional chief judicial magistrate, Patna, which had rejected the doctor’s discharge plea. It also cancelled all consequential criminal proceedings against him.

With this, the high court brought to an end criminal proceedings that had been pending against the orthopaedic surgeon for nearly 14 years.