No Criminal Action against doctors without Expert Medical Opinion : P&H High Court - Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 No Criminal Action against doctors without Expert medical opinion : P&H High Court - 

Case Details : 

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Vijay Kumar Dhawan and others V/s. Gurpreet Singh . 

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

CRM-M-15772-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.01.2026

Facts in short :

1. The present petition was filed by the Petitioner Doctors against quashing of FIR for the alleged  offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, for causing death of a Pregnant woman in her permanency.  

2. The case geos back to 2015, when the Respondent took his pregnant wife Smt. Sandeep Kaur to the Petitioner's hospital as she was in labour pains.  it was allged that it   was informed that she would have normal delivery and was asked to deposit the fee. however the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 had subsequently informed the complainant that a surgery was to be performed for delivery and hence  Petitioner No.4, who was a practicing doctor in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar had been called and had performed surgery. The wife of the complainant had given birth to twin daughters. 

3. It was alleged that the  complainant was not allowed to meet his wife thereafter and was informed that she was bleeding profusely and that her uterus was to be removed as her condition was serious. The complainant was made to sign some papers. The condition of his wife had worsened. She was taken to some other hospital and was operated again. The doctors of that hospital informed that her surgery had not properly performed by the petitioners and her uterus had not been taken out, due to which, infections had spread in her body and as a result of which she died. Hence an FIR was lodged and the Ld. magistrate prima facie found the doctors negligent and hence issued process against Doctors for the said offenses.

Defense : 

1. It was argued for Doctors that the learned Magistrate did not consider the fact that the testimony of CW-3 Dr. Rana Ranjit Singh,  Professor of Surgery at Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, indicated that at the time of admission in that hospital, the wife of the complainant was conscious and cooperative with stable vitals. She was suffering from postpartum hemorrhage. Her uterus was in atony and was removed to save her life. Her condition had worsened due to disseminated intravascular coagulation. There was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the petitioners, who had treated the victim.

2. the ld. Magistrate also ignored the expert opinion of  a team of doctors was constituted by the Civil Surgeon concerned whose report  contended that there was no lapse or negligence on the part of either of the petitioners. the consumer compliant filed by the Respondent was also dismissed in default and any such private compliant without expert opinion should not have been entertained. 

Held :

1. Her ladyship examined the evidence on record and relying on the guidelines issued by Hon. Apex Court in the cases of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 836, which was followed subsequently in other cases, had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran to look into the complaint filed by the complainant and proceed in accordance with law, vide order dated 05.08.2015. It is also revealed that thereafter, a thorough inquiry was conducted by a team of two doctors of Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran. The statements of Dr. Rana Ranjit Singh, under whose supervision the treatment of the victim was done in Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, was recorded and a report was submitted that the events that had taken place with the victim from her treatment upto her death, were natural and no doctor was found to be careless/negligent.

2. the court also placed its reliance on Jacob Mathew's case which observed that a simple error of judgment, accident, or unsuccessful treatment does not constitute criminal negligence, it added.

3. however the Ld. magistrate ignored these expert evidence nor asked for any independent expert evidence nor the complainant had also prayed for the same.  thus there was no prima facie evidence to prove the alleged offenses and the Hon'ble high Court quashed the impugned criminal compliant.

Its indeed unfortunate event and the loss is irreversible. however, for every death a doctor cannot be attributed with negligence. No Doctor would gain any anything by losing his/her patient. however, most of the times the sentiments or media trial play important role in creating narratives, which is a two edged sword. lessons to be learnt by other medicos is following proper SOPs and proper documentation. 

thanks and regards

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©