‘Gross negligence’: 24 years after toddler’s death, Orissa High Court upholds conviction of ‘unqualified’ medical doctor

Dangerous conduct: Court’s warning against quackery

• The appellant was not a qualified medical practitioner.
• Evidence also shows that he was carrying on medical practice in the locality and administering medicines and injections to patients without possessing any recognised medical qualification.

• Such conduct, in the opinion of this court, clearly amounts to gross negligence, particularly when the treatment was administered to a child of tender age.

No intent to kill, but clear negligence

• While affirming the findings of the trial court, the high court agreed that the prosecution failed to establish intent or knowledge necessary to convict the accused under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide).
• Instead, the court held that the act squarely fell within the ambit of Section 304A (causing death by negligence), emphasising that the accused had no formal medical training.

• He administered injections to a vulnerable child.
• The death occurred immediately after the treatment
• These factors, the court said, clearly established rash and negligent conduct leading to death.

Child dies after ‘treatment’ by unqualified practitioner

• The case arose from the death of a two-year-old child in Nuapada district in December 2000, who was suffering from fever suspected to be malaria.
• The child’s family approached the accused, a local man known in the village for offering medical treatment despite lacking any recognised qualification.
• Evidence on record showed that the accused examined the child and administered two chloroquine injections.

• Shortly thereafter, the child’s condition worsened rapidly, leading to unconsciousness and death within a short span of time.
• The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimonies of family members present during the administration of injections, which were corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports detecting chloroquine in the child’s body.

Trial court’s decision

• The trial court, on September 5, 2002 came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused had administered two chloroquine injections to the deceased child, who was suffering from fever and that soon thereafter the child died.
• The court relied on the medical evidence of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and the chemical examination report detecting chloroquine in the viscera of the deceased.
• The court further found that the accused had been practicing medicine in the locality without possessing any recognised medical qualification and had administered the injections without due care and competence.

• However, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had any intention to cause death or the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death so as to attract the offence under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
• Consequently, holding that the act of the accused amounted to a rash and negligent act causing death, the court convicted the accused under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

Sentence reduced after two-decade delay

• Despite upholding the conviction, the court modified the sentence, taking into account that the appeal had been pending for over two decades.
• The accused had already spent nearly 11 months in custody during trial.
• The incident dated back to 2000.

• The court took into consideration the long pendency of the appeal for more than two decades, the lapse of time since the occurrence, and the fact that the appellant has already undergone a substantial period of custody during investigation and trial.
• This court is of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant is confined to the period he has already undergone, while maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned trial court.

Court flags rural healthcare gaps, but draws firm line

• Advocate Satya Narayan Mishra, the Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant argued that the accused was providing treatment in the absence of proper medical facilities in the village and had no ill intention.

• However, the court rejected this as a mitigating justification for unauthorised medical practice.
• While acknowledging the context of inadequate rural healthcare, the judgment sends a clear message that such gaps cannot legitimize unqualified and dangerous medical interventions.

State’s opposition

• Sobhan Panigrahi, Additional Standing Counsel for the state supported the judgment of the trial court.
• He submitted that the evidence clearly establishes that the appellant, though lacking any medical qualification.
• The counsel said that he was administering medicines and injections to villagers and that such reckless conduct resulted in the death of the minor child.