Shivdevi v. Dr. Dharmendra Singh and others), under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154880 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16924 of 2024 Applicant :- Dr Dharmendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. Impugned summoning order dated 04.02.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in Complaint Case No. 1199 of 2019 (Shivdevi vs. Dr. Dharmendra Singh and others), under Section 304A IPC as well as statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. are reproduced hereinafter. Summoning order dated 04.02.2020 "पतत्रावलली वत्रास्तते आदतेशत्रारर आज मतेरते समक्ष प्रस्ततुत हहयली। ववदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा पररवत्रावदनली कको पपूवर मम सतुनत्रा जत्रा चतुकत्रा हहै। पररवत्रावदनली दत्रारत्रा अवभियतुकगण डत्राडां० धिमरन्द्र धसडांह व दको अन्य व्यवक कको तलब वकए जत्रानते हतेततु प्रत्राररनत्रा पत प्रस्ततुत वकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै। करन कते समररन मम पररवत्रादली दत्रारत्रा सयपूचली सते शहैय्यत्रा पतक , रहैफरल सस्लप, शव ववच्छतेदन आख्यत्रा, पतुधलस अधिलीक्षक कको प्रतेवषित प्रत्राररनत्रा पत ककी छत्रायत्रा प्रवत एवडां अन्य प्रपत प्रस्ततुत वकए गए हह। पररवत्रावदनली दत्रारत्रा धित्रारत्रा 200 दडां०प्र०सडां० कते बयत्राननों मम करन वकयत्रा हहै वक वदनत्राडांक 08.07.2018 कको समय 2 बजते उसकते बतेटते कते पतेट मम ददर हहआ तको उसकको धजलत्रा अस्पतत्राल मम भितर्ती वकयत्रा। जहत्राडां डत्राक्टर नते इडांजतेक्शन लगत्रायत्रा उसकते बत्राद हत्रालत वबगडनते लगली। शरलीर नलीलत्रा पड गयत्रा। सहैसपटक फहै लनते कते कत्रारण उसककी ममौत हको गयली। उसकते बतेटते ककी ममौत डत्राक्टर ककी लत्रापरवत्राहली कते कत्रारण हहयली। उसनते पतुधलस मम वशकत्रायत वकयत्रा , वकन्ततु ककोई कत्रायरवत्राहली नहहीं हहयली। पररवत्रावदनली ककी ओर सते धित्रारत्रा 202 दडां०प्र०सडां० कते अन्तगरत परलीवक्षत सत्राक्षलीगण पली०डब्लपू-1 श्यत्रामधसडांह व पलीडब्लपू 2 सडांजपू कश्यपप् नते भिली पररवत्राद पत मम वकए गए करननों कत्रा समररन वकयत्रा हहै। पतत्रावलली पत उपलब्धि प्रत्राधररनली कते पतुत कक ष्णत्रा ककी शव ववच्छतेदन आख्यत्रा कते अवलकोकन सते प्रतलीत हकोतत्रा हहै वक उसमम शव ववच्छतेदन करनते वत्रालते वचवकत्सक दत्रारत्रा मकत्यपू कत्रा कत्रारण Septicemia दवशरत वकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै। पररवत्रावदनली नते आरकोप लगत्रायत्रा हहै वक उसकते पतुत कक ष्णत्रा कको अचत्रानक पतेट मम ददर हकोनते कते कत्रारण उसते धजलत्रा अस्पतत्राल महैनपतुरली मम इमरजमसली वत्राडर मम इलत्राज हतेततु भितर्ती करत्रायत्रा रत्रा। भितर्ती कते समय उसकते पतुत कते इलत्राज हतेततु इमरजमसली मतेवडकल ऑफकीसर दत्रारत्रा इन्जहैक्शन लगत्रायत्रा रत्रा। उसकते बत्राद उसकते बच्चते ककी हत्रालत खरत्राब हकोतली चलली गयली। दतेखतते हली दतेखतते उसकत्रा शरलीर नलीलत्रा पड गयत्रा तरत्रा मतु डांह मते झत्राग वनकलनते लगत्रा। डत्राक्टरनों दत्रारत्रा उसकते पतुत कको नहहीं दतेखत्रा गयत्रा और उनकते दत्रारत्रा लगत्रायते गयते इन्जहैक्शन सते सहैसपटक फहै ल जत्रानते कते कत्रारण उसककी मकत्यपू हको गयली। उसककी मकत्यपू डत्राक्टरनों ककी लत्रापरवत्राहली सते गलत इलत्राज दतेनते सते हहयली हहै। एम्बतुलमस सतेवत्रा ककी रतेफरल सस्लप मम वदनत्राडांक 08.07.2018 कको 7.20 ए०एम पर भितर्ती वदखत्रायत्रा हहै तरत्रा 7.30 पर रहैफर वकयत्रा जत्रानत्रा दवशरत हहै। जबवक रत्रानत्रा ककोतवत्रालली ककी जली०डली० मम वदनत्राडांक 08.07.2018 कको रत्रावत 2 बजते मम अस्पतत्राल मम आनत्रा तरत्रा इन्जतेक्शन लगत्रानते कत्रा करन वकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै। उक घटनत्रा कते समय कते सली०सली०टली०वली० फतु टतेज गत्रायब हहै। पकोस्टमत्राटरम ररपकोटर व जलीडली मम वदनत्राडांक 08.07.2018 कको रत्रावत 2 बजते अस्पतत्राल मम दत्राधखल करनते कत्रा करन हहै। जबवक शहैय्यत्रा पतक मम समय 7.20 ए.एम दवशरत वकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै, जको वक गलत दवशरत वकयत्रा हहै। पररवत्रावदनली व अन्य सत्राक्षलीगण कते बयत्रान सते स्पष Septicemia सते उसकते पतुत ककी मकत्यपू हहयली हहै। ममौधखक सत्राक्ष्य मम श्यत्राम धसडांह व हहै वक सडांजपू कश्यप कते ववरूद्ध प्ररम दृषयत्रा सत्राक्ष्य हहै। अततः ऐसली सस्रवत मम पतत्रावलली पर उपलब्धि सत्राक्ष्य कते आधित्रार पर ववपक्षली डत्राडां० धिमरन्द्र धसडांह कते ववरूद्ध धित्रारत्रा 304 ए भित्रा०दडां०सडां० मम प्ररम दृषयत्रा मत्रामलत्रा बनतत्रा हहै। अततः उपरकोक वववतेचनत्रा कते प्रकत्राश मम अवभियतुक डत्रा० धिमरन्द्र धसडांह कको अन्तगरत धित्रारत्रा 304 ए भित्रा०दडां०सडां० मम तलब वकए जत्रानते कत्रा आधित्रार पयत्रारप्त हहै। आदतेश अवभियतुक डत्राडां० धिमरन्द्र धसडांह इमरजतेन्सली मतेवडकल ऑफकीसर हत्राल तहैनत्रातली महत्रारत्राजत्रा ततेल धसडांह धजलत्रा अस्पतत्राल, महैनपतुरली कको अन्तगरत धित्रारत्रा 304 ए भित्रा०दडां०सडां० कते अन्तगरत जररयते सम्मन आहहत वकयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै। पररवत्रावदनली गवत्राहनों ककी सपूचली एवडां पहैरवली अन्दर सप्तत्राह प्रस्ततुत करते। तदतुपरत्रान्त अवभियतुकगण कते ववरूद्ध सम्मन वदनत्राडांक 13.03.2020 कते धलए जत्रारली हनों।" बयत्रान पररवत्रावदनली अन्तगरत धित्रारत्रा 200 सली . आर . पली . सली . "वशव दतेवली पतुतली लत्रालत्रारत्राम पत्नली स्व . मडांशत्रारत्राम वनवत्रासली पतुसवत्रा नते सशपर बयत्रान वदयत्रा वक- वद. 08.07.18 कको सतुबह 2 बजते मतेरते बतेटते कते पतेट मम ददर हहआ तको उसते धजलत्रा अस्पतत्राल मम भितर्ती वकयत्रा। जहत्राडां डत्राक्टर नते इडांजतेक्शन लगत्रायत्रा उसकते बत्राद हत्रालत वबगड़नते लगली शरलीर नलीलत्रा पड़ गयत्रा। सहैसपटक फहै लनते कते कत्रारण उसककी ममौत हको गयली। मतेरते बतेटते ककी ममौत डत्राक्टसर ककी लत्रापरवत्राहली कते कत्रारण हहई। महैनते पतुधलस मम वशकत्रायत वकयत्रा पर ककोई कत्रायरवत्राहली नहहीं हहई।" 3. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab; 2005 (6) SCC 1, which has
Legal Reasoning
been followed by this Court in case of Dr. Arunima Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2024:AHC:122093, that in a case where there is allegation of rashness and negligence in giving treatment, the complainant must produce prima facie evidence in form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the said charges on part of accused doctor. 4. Learned AGA has supported the impugned order, however, could not dispute the above referred legal position as held in Jacob Mathew (supra) and as followed in Dr. Arunima Saxena (supra). 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I have carefully perused the above referred statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned order and I find that complainant has failed to produce prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another competent doctor as such the facts of present case are squarely covered from above referred judgments in favour of applicants and against complainant. For reference the relevant paragraphs of Dr. Arunima Saxena (supra) is being reproduced hereinafter :- "Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant refers a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab; 2005 (6) SCC 1 that in case where there are allegation of rashness or negligence in giving treatment, the complainant must produce prima facie evidence in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused-applicant and for reference its paragraph 52 is reproduced hereinafter:- "Statutory rules or executive instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The Investigating Officer should, before proceeding against the Doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in Government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying the Bolam, 1957 (1)WLR 582 : 1957 (2) All ER 118, test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the Investigating Officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest maybe withheld." Learned counsel for the applicant also refers that the aforesaid law as followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 12.10.2018 passed in Application U/ S 482 No. 4226 of 2005 (Dr. A. K. Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and the relvant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:- "32. A still recent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Martin F. D'Souza (supra) has reiterated the fundamental principles of the law about medical negligence, as laid down in Suresh Gupta (supra), Jacob Mathew (supra) and Kusum Sharma (supra). Martin F. D'Souza (supra) also arose under the Consumer Disputes Jurisdiction. Their Lordships in the said decision have laid down definite procedural safeguards, to insulate doctors against the predicament of facing the entire rigamarole of proceedings, merely because a patient in his perception of the matter, chooses to move the machinery of law. Their Lordships mandated procedural safeguards to be followed in all jurisdictions, in matters of complaints of medical negligence against doctors, directing thus: "106. We, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or by the Criminal Court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or Criminal Court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the concerned doctor/hospital. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be ultimately found to be negligent. We further warn the police officials not to arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters laid down in Jacob Mathew's case (supra), otherwise the policemen will themselves have to face legal action." 33. A perusal of the impugned complaint and the proceedings before the Magistrate, shows that the complaint is not supported by any kind of a second opinion, or expert opinion by another doctor, that is to say, a medically informed endorsement of the complainant's allegation against the applicants. The Magistrate has proceeded to issue process, forming an opinion about the existence of a prima facie case, where the material on record by the procedural safeguards, devised by their Lordships in Suresh Gupta (supra), Jacob Mathew (supra) and Martin F. D'Souza (supra) does not permit the Magistrate, to form that opinion. In other words, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint, and, proceeded to issue process, in the absence of an expert opinion by a competent doctor or a Committee of doctors, to which the matter should have been first referred, given the fact that no second opinion by a competent doctor was filed by the complainant. Before this Court too, it is not the complainant's case, though he has filed a return, that he filed any expert report or a second opinion from a doctor, to buttress his complaint. It does not require any further dilation or analysis to say that it is only an expert opinion by a competent doctor, or a committee of them, filed in support of the complaint or secured by the Court, that would imbue life into the impugned complaint on the basis of which the Magistrate could proceed against the applicants. That basis is utterly absent, on the state of proceedings impugned in the present application. As such, the impugned complaint, and, all consequential proceedings, are liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of court." 6. The outcome of above discussion is that since the complainant has failed to produce any opinion of another competent doctor, therefore, Trial Court has erred in entertaining the complainant and the impugned order being in the teeth of above referred judgments, is liable to be set aside. 7. The application is accordingly partly allowed. Impugned order dated 04.02.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in in Complaint Case No.1199 of 2019 (Shivdevi vs. Dr. Dharmendra Singh and others), under Section 304A IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, is set aside. 8. Since this order is passed without issuing notice to Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., complainant, therefore, matter is remitted back to Trial Court concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law after hearing complainant expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 23.9.2024 AK