Neeta Tripathi @ Dr. Nita Tripathi vs State Of Bihar And Anr
- Citation2023 SCC OnLine Pat 3515
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A medical professional cannot be held criminally liable for negligence merely because a patient's condition deteriorated or because the outcome was unfavorable, provided the doctor followed a practice acceptable to the medical profession at the time of treatment and exercised reasonable care within the standard of medical knowledge available. Criminal negligence, as distinct from civil negligence, requires the element of mens rea; the mere failure to achieve a successful medical outcome, or deviation from an ideal procedure, does not constitute criminal negligence punishable under sections 304A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code if the doctor acted in accordance with accepted medical practice and within the scope of professional competence. Where a patient is discharged from medical care in apparent good health and without complaints, and subsequently develops complications only after seeking treatment from a different medical facility, the original treating physician's failure to be consulted about those later complications does not establish that the physician's initial treatment was criminally negligent.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48927 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1089 Year-2012 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District- Saran ====================================================== Neeta Tripathi @ Dr. Nita Tripathi Wife of Anil Kumar Tripathi, Resident of Mohalla - Chatradhari Bazar, South Jail, P.S. - Bhagwan Bazar, District - Saran ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar and 2. Gautam Singh, Son of Late Ram Sagar Singh, Resident of Village - Itahiya, P.s. - Chapra Mufassil, District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr.Alok Kr.Choudhary, Advocate Mr. K.Jha, R.Tiwary & P.Kumar, Advocates, Advocates For the State : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Addl Public Prosecutor for opposite party no.2 Mr.Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH C A V JUDGMENT Date : 19-07-2023
Present application has been filed for quashing order
dated 24.9.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Chapra
in Complaint Case No. 1089 of 2012, by which cognizance of the
offence punishable under sections 304A and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code has been has been taken against the petitioner.
2. Prosecution's case in short is that wife of
complainant/opposite party no.2, namely, Manju Devi (herein
after referred to as 'the victim') was admitted to the 'Tripathi
Nursing Home, Chapra' run by petitioner for her vaginal
hysterectomy under the BPL scheme and on 20.2.2012, she was
operated without performing required clinical Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48927 of 2015 dt.19-07-2023 2/6
examinations/tests, as a result of which later on she developed
post operational complications. It is further alleged that at the
request of the petitioner, opposite party no.2 signed the discharge
ticket so that the doctor may get the payment from the
Government agency but the victim remained admitted in the
petitioner's nursing home. It is further alleged that when her
condition did not improve, she was taken to Patna where another
surgery was operated upon her in the Atlantis Hospital. However,
victim died on 12.3.2012.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.11.2011,
victim came to the nursing home of the petitioner with medical
complications. Thereafter, she was examined by the petitioner
and was prescribed medicines (annexure 2). On 28.1.2012, she
was again checked up and on thorough examination, she was
advised operation of uterus. Necessary investigations/tests like
blood test, Ultrasonography (USG), X-ray, etc. was conducted in
Mahabir X-ray and Scan Centre and B.K. Patho Centre (annexure
4 series). On 19.2.2012 victim was admitted in the petitioner's
nursing home and next day she was operated upon by the
petitioner assisted by her husband Dr. Anil Kumar Tripathi, who
is a qualified surgeon with MBBS, MS degree. Said operation, in
medical parlance, is termed as vaginal hysterectomy. After full Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48927 of 2015 dt.19-07-2023 3/6
recovery, she was discharged from the nursing home on
28.2.2012
and complainant also signed on discharge slip and
made remarks excellent (annexure 6). During treatment,
petitioner adopted standard technique prescribed in the Shaw's
text book of gynecology which is authority in the field of
gynecology (annexure 7).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
criminal proceedings have been instituted by opposite party no.2
with ulterior motive to blackmail and harass the petitioner.
Denying the allegations, he submits that the victim had been
operated upon after thorough investigation and on following the
standard operating procedure by the qualified doctors. Wife of
opposite party no.2 was discharged from the nursing home on
28.2.2012 after full recovery from her problems and opposite
party no.2 also signed discharge slip and made remarks
'excellent'. However, opposite party no.2 never consulted the
petitioner for alleged post operation complications, rather last
time, she was operated upon by other team of doctors in a
different hospital at Patna.
5. It is further argued that even allegations, made in the
complaint, are accepted in the entirety, the same do not prima
facie constitute offence of rashness or negligence on the part of a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48927 of 2015 dt.19-07-2023 4/6
professional, as such, in the case in hand, criminal proceeding
cannot sustain in the eye of law. Reliance is placed on a decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jacob
Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in AIR
2005 Supreme Court 3180; and Bombay Hospital & Medical
Research Centre Vs. Asha Jaiswal & ors, reported in Civil
Appeal Nos.1658 & 2322/2010 .
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
as well as the opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer of the
petitioner for quashing the cognizance order dated 24.9.2012.
They submit that the allegations made in the FIR clearly
constitute offence of rash negligence against the petitioner
punishable under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on the records as also decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. It is specific case of opposite party no.2 that he was
BPL card holder and the treatment was to be done free of cost
under the Government scheme and the petitioner, in order to cut
the expenses of the treatment, did not prefer required clinical
tests and operated upon the victim in haste. Furthermore,
petitioner removed the uterus of the victim by pulling out the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48927 of 2015 dt.19-07-2023 5/6
same by hands and not by way of surgical procedure. On
developing post operational complications, petitioner only keep
on changing medicines rather referring the victim to some other
doctor in time only to make money.
9. On going through the records, it appears that on
26.11.2011, the victim was examined by the petitioner and was
prescribed medicines (annexure 2). After about two months, on
28.1.2012, she was again checked up and on thorough
examination, she was advised operation of uterus termed as
vaginal hysterectomy. Necessary investigations/tests like blood
test, Ultrasonography (USG), X-ray, etc. was conducted in
Mahabir X-ray and Scan Centre, Dahiawan, Chapra and B.K.
Patho Centre, South of Jail, Chapra (annexure 4 series). On
19.2.2012 victim was admitted in the petitioner's nursing home
and next day she was operated upon by the petitioner, MBBS
doctor, assisted by her husband Dr. Anil Kumar Tripathi, who
was a qualified surgeon with MBBS, MS degree. Victim was
discharged from the nursing home on 28.2.2012 after full
recovery from her problems and opposite party no.2 also signed
discharge slip and made remarks 'excellent. Thereafter, opposite
party no.2 never visited the nursing home for consultation with
respect to post operation surgery, rather he consulted other Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48927 of 2015 dt.19-07-2023 6/6
doctors who conducted another surgery thereafter victim died. It
also appears that the petitioner has provided requisite medical
care to the best of her ability till the victim was admitted in his
nursing home.
10. There is difference between 'Negligence' and
'Criminal Negligence' and it is only criminal negligence which
can be tried by a criminal court. For 'Negligence' to amount to
offence, element of mens rea must exits. So long doctor follows
practice acceptable to medical profession of that day, he cannot
be held liable for negligence.
11. Having considered rival submissions of the parties
and on going through the decisions, I find that continuation of
criminal proceeding would only be misuse of process of law.
Consequently, this quashing petition is allowed and cognizance
order dated 24.9.2012 is set aside.
12. However, quashing of the cognizance order does not
preclude the opposite party no.2 to claim for compensation, if so
advised.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 12.7.2023. Uploading Date 19.7.2023. Transmission Date 19.7.2023.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free