LexA.S.V. NARAYANAN RAO versus RATNAMALA & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 117 A.S.V. NARAYANAN RAO v. RATNAMALA & ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] A 8 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s . . 482 - Criminal proceedings u/s. 304A /PC for medical negligence - Quashing of - Denied by courts below - Held: The C proceedings are liable to be quashed - Though doctors are not immune from criminal proceedings for their professional negligence, but in the interest of the society they are required to be protected from frivolous and unjust prosecution - In the facts of the case, case u/s. 304A not made out against the D accused doctor - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304A. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant (a medical practitioner) uls. 304A IPC at the behest of respondent No.1, who was the wife of E appellant's patient who lost his life during treatment. Though the police· after its investigation of the case, submitted its report stating that it was a case of no evidence, but the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The appellant approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, but the High Court F declined to quash the proceedings. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. Though doctors are not immune from legal proceedings in the event of their negligence in discharging their professional duties, in the interest of the 117 H 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A society, it is necessary to protect doctors from frivolous and unjust prosecution. [Para 11) [122-A-B] 2. From the final report submitted by the police in the instant case, it can be gathered that the records 8 pertaining to the treatment given to the deceased were forwarded to the State Medical Council and also the Medical Council of India which opined that the "doctors seem to have made an attempt to do their best as per records". However, the High Court thought it fit to C continue the prosecution of the appellant for two reasons (1) that the appellant chose to conduct the angioplasty without having a surgical standby unit and such failure resulted in delay of 5 hours in conducting by-pass after the angioplasty failed; and (2) that the appellant did not consult a Cardio Anesthesian before conducting an D angioplasty. According to the High Court, both the above-mentioned 'lapses' on the part of the appellant "clearly show the negligence" of the appellant. The High Court reached such conclusion on the basis of evidence of a doctor, given before the State Consumer Redressal E Commission in the consumer dispute initiated by the respondent-wife of the deceased against the appellant and others. But the High Court failed to take into account another part of the same statemenYwhereby the doctor stated that the time gap between (he angioplasty failure F and the surgery was not the factor for the death of the patient and that the time gap may or may not be a factor for the enhancement of the risk. This is most crucial in the context of criminal prosecution of the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution of the appellant is uncalled for. G [Paras 12 to 16] [123-A-E; 124-8-D] H Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2005) 6 sec 1: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 307 - relied on. A.S.V. NARAYANAN RAO v. RATNAMALA 119 Case Law Reference: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 307 relied on Para 16 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2013. A From the Judgment & Order dated 28.10.2010 of the High B Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 6506 of 2007. P.S. Narasimha, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Sudha Gupta for the Appellant. Mahabir Singh, Nikhil Jain, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, G.N. Reddy, Debojit, M. Bala Shivudu, D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 28th October 2010 in Criminal Petition No.6506 of 2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. c D 3. The aforementioned criminal petition was filed praying E that the proceedings initiated against the appellant herein in C.C. No.600 of 2006 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC be quashed. The said petition along with another similar petition by one of the co-accused was heard and disposed of by a common order (order in appeal). F 4. While the pet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.