Dr. Ashok Maudgil & Anr. v. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Accused/revisionists have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 26.8.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohindergarh, as well as the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby accused/revisionists have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Brief facts of the present case are that on 27.4.2002 a complaint was given by Kartar Singh in which it was alleged that he is resident of village Chelawas and working in B.S.F. visiting his village on 55 days leave. It was alleged that on 13.4.2002 he came to the village and on 24.4.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. he had gone to the hospital of Dr. Sunita and Dr. Ashok Mudgil known as Ashoka Private Hospital Kanina, CRR No.1825 of 2010 (O&M) -2- for regular consultation. Allegedly the doctor asked for what they have visited on which it was informed that he wants to get his pregnant wife examined. On this allegedly doctor admitted her and they asked complainant to bring some medicines. Allegedly complainant kept sitting till late night and when he asked doctor how much more time it will take, doctor informed that soon they will get the delivery done. Allegedly complainant asked doctor that if the matter is beyond the control they can discharge her wife but doctor kept assuring that everything is ok. Later Dr. Sunita and Dr. Ashok present accused came out of their rooms and took the wife of complainant to labour room where hurriedly and negligently got the child delivered and informed that still child was born. Allegedly doctor demanded their fees Rs.2800/- and also informed that his wife is having excessive bleeding and she may be taken where ever complainant wants. On this complainant brought vehicle from bus stand and reached general hospital at Rewari. There his wife was treated for two hours and was subsequently referred for Safderjang Hospital Delhi. Allegedly when his wife was being taken by ambulance for Delhi, near Dharuhera his wife collapsed and died. She was brought back to Civil Hospital Rewari where her postmortem was got conducted and some proceedings were done. It was alleged that due to rash and negligent act and forceful delivery conducted by doctor Sunita and doctor Ashok his child and wife both have died. In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW1 Luxminarian retired Sub Inspector, who has proved formal FIR Ex. PW1/A and endorsement Ex.PW1/B, site plan Ex.PW1/C. PW2 Santra CRR No.1825 of 2010 (O&M) -3- wife of Azad Singh, PW3 Randhir Singh son of Phul Chand, PW4 Sukhbir, the complainant himself appeared as PW5 who has proved complaint Ex.PW5/A, PW6 Dr. PD Nehra who has proved his postmortem report Ex.PW6/A, opinion of Board PW6/B and his opinion Ex.PW6/C. Dr. Saroj Maan examined with PW6 for cross examination by accused. Prosecution further examined PW7 Dr. Sharda Dabass who proved bed head ticket of deceased Ex.PW7/A. PW8 Vinod Kumar who has proved blood report Ex.PW8/A. No other witness was examined despite availing sufficient opportunities including the last opportunity, hence prosecution evidence was closed by Court order dated 17.7.2008. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused denied incriminating evidence put to them giving explanation that they had not been negligent in performance of their duty. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, learned trial Court held accused/respondents guilty under Sections 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. However, keeping in view their family conditions and their noble profession accused/respondents were released on probation for two years on furnishing probation bonds with surety in the sum of Rs.10000/- each and Rs.15000/- each as compensation to be paid to the complainant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the order passed by learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that both the Courts below have totally ignored the fact that both the revisionists are qualified doctors to provide appropriate medical CRR No.1825 of 2010 (O&M) -4- treatment to the wife of the complainant and as such there was no carelessness on their part in the treatment of the deceased, but both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the evidence on the record and as such the judgments of conviction passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the record, I find that complainant-Kartar Singh while appearing as PW5 has categorically deposed that his wife was admitted in the hospital and the petitioners were treating her. He has categorically deposed that he asked the petitioners that if they cannot treat his wife, they may discharge her but they said that there is no risk to her life. Admittedly, the wife of the complainant was taking treatment under the care and custody of the petitioners. The learned trial Court after going through the evidence available on the record found that the petitioners had acted in a gross negligent manner on account of which the wife of the complainant died. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any manifest error or law or jurisdictional or procedural error committed by the Courts below amounting to failure of justice, rather there is ample evidence available on the record which goes to prove the guilt of the accused. I am afraid that while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I can re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left by the trial Court while deciding the case. Moreover, there is also delay of 202 days in filing the present revision and no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the huge CRR No.1825 of 2010 (O&M) delay of 202 days. -5- Thus, the petition is, therefore, dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. March 07, 2011 R.S. (Alok Singh) Judge