A Sr. Doctor was booked for Murder, as Telephonic Instructions went wrong causing death of a patient. Thanks to Apex Court which reduced it to lesser offense : Adv. ROHiT Erande ©

 A Sr. Doctor was booked for Murder, as Telephonic Instructions went wrong causing death of a patient. Thanks to Apex Court which reduced it to lesser offense : 

Adv. ROHiT Erande ©

Case Details : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 720-722OF 2025 (ARISINGFROMSLP(CRIMINAL)NO(S)4842-4844/2022)

   DR.MOHAN         V/s.                        THE STATE OF TAMILNADU & ANR

   Facts in Short :

1. The appellant assails the correctness of an order dated 11th August, 2021 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. 25858 of 2016 and Crl.M.P. Nos. 12766 and 12767 of 2016 (miscellaneous petitions) filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the P.R.C. No. 20 of 2015 on itedhe file of the Judicial Magistrate District Thiruvallur, State of Tamil Nadu registered under Section 304 Part I IPC.

2. The Appellant - a qualified medical practitioner was charged with an offence Under  Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)  as he   conveyed/instructed a staff nurse to administer an injection over telephone, which injection when administered to the patient, apparently reacted, resulting into his death. Thus the Appellant was charged with aforementioned section.

3. The submission is that this allegation would not constitute an offence under and at most, the same could be covered by Section 304 A, IPC (causing death due to negligence).

4.  It is further submitted that as against the staff nurse who had administered the injection on the instructions of the appellant, the proceedings have already been quashed by the High Court relying upon a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab andAnother  reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1.

5.      He, therefore, submits that the chargesheet filed under Section 304 Part 1 IPC cannot be sustained and, at best, could be maintained under Section 304 A, IPC.

Held :

1.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the registration of the FIR under Section 304 Part I IPC and the subsequent submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC also under Section 304 Part I IPC cannot be sustained.

4. The Apex Court directed to drop the charges of murder and asked the Magistrate to proceed with charges U/Sec.304-A - Causing death by rash and negligent Act, a bailable offence under IPC.

To give telephonic Instructions on phone is nothing new and rather convenient too. But whenever such incident happens a Doctor is made scape goat

This judgement gives the medicos a subject to ponder over about instructions over phone and it's proper implementation.

There are chances that the  patient might  succumb to such anaphylatic reaction irrespective of the fact whether injection given in presence of a Doctor or not. 

But as the Sr. Doctor was not present, they perhaps got a chance to blame the Dr.

So every Doctor should learn from it and should order as fst as possible to his Jr. Or Resident Dr who would remain present as far as possible.

Thanks and regards 


Adv. ROHiT Erande. ©


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital “Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” – National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor ...
Read more

A "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.-Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

 The "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.© a. Non availability of Operation Theatre is not a valid ground to hold Hospital Negligent : b. Non functioning of Machines and Equipments cannot be said to be Negligence. c. It is an incorrect assumption to say that, "since surgery was performed by a doctor, he alone would be responsible for different aspects of the treatment required and given to the patient". d. It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital. e. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence. f.  In spite of the treatment, if the patient had not survived, the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable g. The doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of  res ips...
Read more

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section " The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (MSCDRC) in its recent judgment dated 31/03/2017, gave the verdict against the Doctor, but absolved the Hospital.. Case details - Mr.Prashant Tamhane V/s. P.D. hinduja Hospital and anr. CC No.221 of 2003. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do… Facts in short : 1. This is the case of 2002. The wife (since deceased) of the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital after the blood reports revealed symptoms of hepatitis. There she was examined by Dr.Ashit Hegde, the Opponent no.2 Doctor in the present case. At that time he after examining the patient he thought it fit for not admitting the patient. By taking medication she was improving. 2.However after about one month, she had Chest pain and difficulty in breathing. Initial X-ray was normal, but in later X-ray, she was diagno...
Read more