Elements of rashness and negligence are essential
constituents of an offence punishable under Section 304A
of the
Indian Penal Code. They are something which cannote
recklessness, lack of care, throwing to winds the procedural
requirements and similar such other factors. In the instant case,
the doctors respondent
Nos.3 and 4, appear to have made some or
other examination of the patient and then only these doctors had
come to a conclusion about what and how should they diagnose
the ailment of Sheela and accordingly diagnosed and treated her.
As said earlier, this is not a case of diagnosis made and treatment
given in total contrast to result of patient's clinical and other
examination or in absence of it. If Dr. Arvind Bhamkar has given a
different opinion, it would not mean that Dr. Laxmi Jawanjal,
Dr. Deepak Gadge and Dr. Sushama Gadge, the respondents Nos.2
to 4, on their respective parts, were negligent. One has to
understand the difference between negligence and incorrectness of
an opinion. What has happened in this case could either be called
as error of judgment made in goodfaith
without any mala fides or
negligence or a case of conflict of opinions between two sets of
doctors without any criminality attached to either of the sets.
14. The conclusions reached above receive further support
from the material present on record. It is in the nature of opinion
of the Board of Medical Experts set up by Civil Surgeon, Amravati
and there is no dispute about the said opinion. According to this
opinion, the diagnosis made as well as treatment given to the
deceased Sheela by respondent Nos.2 to 4 was proper in the fact
situation of this case. Thus, as rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, in this case, the prima facie
evidence available on record supports the case of respondent Nos.2
to 4 and not the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner.
It then follows that all these facts attract to them the ratio of Jacob
Mathew (supra), and as such, I find that this is a case wherein
there is no credible opinion given by another competent doctor
that the diagnosis had been made in a rash and negligent manner
and so the treatment was given rashly and negligently.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.802 OF 2013
Gautam s/o. Sukhdeorao Sadanshiv,
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 19 th JANUARY, 2015 .
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)2237
1. Heard. Smt. V.P.Thakare, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. A.K. Bangadkar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent No.1, Mr. M.A.Vaishnav, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. R.J.Mirza, learned counsel for
the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent.
4. This petition has been filed challenging refusal of
learned Magistrate to issue process for an offence punishable under
Section 304A
of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent
Nos.2,3 and 4, who have been made as accused Nos.1,3 and 4
respectively in the Criminal Complaint No.645/2009 filed by the
petitioner against them before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Achalpur, District Amravati. This Criminal Writ Petition also
challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Achalpur on 19.1.2013 in the criminal revision preferred
against the order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, thereby confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Achalpur.
5. Facts of the case, in nut shell are as under :
(i) Petitioner is the unfortunate husband of deceased
Sheela, who, according to the petitionercomplainant
was the
victim of medical negligence.
(ii) It so happened that on 20.1.2007 deceased Sheela, aged
about 45 years, developed heavy bleeding. Therefore, petitioner
took her to hospital of respondent No.3 for treatment. She was
admitted there and administered treatment, but to no avail. She
was then taken on the advise of respondent No.3, to the hospital of
respondent No.4 at Pathrot on 21.2.2007 where she was treated as
indoor patient till 2.2.2007. There also her condition dit not
improve rather, it stated deteriorating. Therefore, petitioner
removed deceased Sheela to hospital of respondent No.2 at
Paratwada, where as advised by respondent No.2, sonography and
pathological tests of samples of blood and urine of patient were got
conducted. While sonography was conducted by respondent No.2
herself, blood and urine tests were done by Dr. Chandrashekhar
Daud. Thereafter, respondent No.2 started the treatment of
deceased Sheela. However, condition of Sheela deteriorated
further and, therefore, petitioner took her on 10.2.2007 to hospital
of Dr. Bhamkar. Dr. Bhamkar got conducted again pathological
tests of samples of blood and urine of Sheela and expressed an
opinion that there was possibility of lukemia. He advised that
patient be taken to Government Medical College (GMC), Nagpur.
As advised, Sheela was brought to G.M.C. On 10.2.2007 itself
where her C.T. Scan was taken and then she was given treatment.
However, on 12.2.2007 deceased Sheela passed away.
(iii) Petitioner felt that his wife had died due to sheer
negligence of respondent Nos.2,3,4 and Dr. Chandrashekar Daud.
He alleged that negligence of respondent Nos.3 and 4 was evident
because they treated Shela without obtaining reports of
sonography and pathological tests; negligence of Dr.
Chandrashekar Daud was in his failure to detect lukemia in the
blood test conducted by him; and negligence of respondent No.2
lay in her wring diagnosis and treatment.
(iv) Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint on 1.3.2007
against said four doctors at Police Station Paratwada alleging
commission of offence of causing death by negligence punishable
under Section 304A
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. But, as Police did not prosecute them by filing a
chargesheet,
petitioner filed a complaint against the doctors
before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, Distt.
Amravati for proceeding against them for commission of said
offence. In the complaint respondent No.2 was arraigned as
accused No.1, Dr. Chandrashekar Daud as accused No.2 and
respondent Nos.3 and 4 as accused Nos.3 and 4. Incidently, during
pendency of the complaint, petitioner withdrew the complaint
against accused No.2 after having reached amicable settlement
with him through mediation.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that following the spirit of the observations of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and
another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180, the petitioner, in order to
show existence of credible opinion of other doctor that respondent
Nos.3 and 4 were negligent, had invited attention of the learned
Magistrate to the statements of all the accused persons and also to
the statement of one Dr. Bhamkar recorded by Police, which
indicated that the diagnosis of respondent Nos.2 to 4 was not
correct and was not based upon the blood and urine reports.
However, these facts, learned counsel further submits, have not
been properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate. She submits
that even though the petitioner succeeded in establishing existence
of prima facie case as regards rashness and negligence on the part
of medical professionals that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are, the
learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge
ignored the same and refused to issue process against these
respondentsaccused
persons.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits
that there is an opinion given by the Board of Doctors consisting of
three doctors on the panel, which shows that there was no
negligence on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in diagnosing
and treating deceased Sheela wife of the petitioner and, therefore,
as held by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Jakob Mathew, there is
available on record credible opinion of another doctor confirming
diagnosis and line of treatment adopted by the these respondents
thereby showing hollowness of the allegations of the petitioner
against these respondents.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1/State has adopted the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner, though has also submitted that approximate order be
passed.
9. There are statements recorded by the Police during the
course of investigation into the first complaint of the petitioner that
did not end up in filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
These statements include statements of Dr. Deepak Gadge (accused
No.3respondent
No.3), Dr. Sau. Laxmi Jawanjal (accused No.1respondent
No.2), Dr. Arvind Mahadeo Bhamkar, another doctor
who had treated the patient deceased Sheela and some other
persons. Statements of said doctors, copies of which are filed on
record of the case by petitioner, throw some useful light on the
nature of present case. They are in the nature of public
documents and, therefore, can be tooked into in exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
these statements, particularly the statements of Dr. Arvind
Mahadeo Bhamkar, would show that there was wrong diagnosis
made and wrong treatment given by Dr. Sau. Laxmi Jawanjal,
Dr. Deepak Gadge and Dr. Sushama Gadge as regards the ailment
suffered by deceased Sheela and, therefore, it amounted to
rashness and negligence on their part.
11. The afore stated argument can hardly be accepted for
the simple reason that in this case there is no material present on
record to show that diagnosis of deceased Sheela made by
respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 was not even based on her clinical
examination, nor is it the case of the petitioner. In such a case,
statement of these doctors would have to accepted as bringing out
the true facts of the case. Dr. Deepak Gadge as well as Dr. Mrs.
Laxmi Jawanjal both have stated that after seeing deceased Sheela
by them and respondent No.4, they diagnosed the ailment the way
they did and accordingly they treated the patientdeceased
Sheela.
This shows that these doctors did what they, in their opinion made
after examining the patient, thought to be the diagnosis of the
patient and also the proper treatment of the patient. A particular
line of treatment was adopted by them as it was considered
appropriate and necessary to improve the condition of deceased
Sheela. In doing so, if some error of judgment had occurred,
which perhaps may have occurred, it was only a mistake made in
good faith, not resulting from any negligence, much less criminal
negligence. There can be an error of judgment but as long as the
error is not shown to be the result of lack of as much degree of care
a medical professional is expected to exercise, which lack of care
has not been shown by evidence collected in this case, rather the
evidence prima facie suggests exercise of reasonable care, the error
of judgment would not turn itself into criminal negligence requisite
for initiating criminal prosecution. Therefore, this cannot be said
to be a case of medical negligence.
12. There can be another scenario. In a given case, it may
happen that two doctors have different opinions about the ailment
being suffered by a patient and they may also differ on the line of
treatment to be adopted for treating such a patient. Could it then
be said that because of difference of opinions, both the doctors are
criminally liable being negligent ? Answer would have to be given
as in the negative because both the doctors being professionals are
entitled to form their opinions after duly considering the result of
examination of the patient. If such opinions are not based upon
some objective material before the professionals or are in
ignorance of the same, and result in some damage or loss, then
only could they be said to assume attributes of negligence
sufficient to prosecute the professionals under criminal law. What
is a case of criminal negligence and what is not, therefore, always
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and has to
be ascertained from all the relevant facts and circumstances taken
together.
13. Elements of rashness and negligence are essential
constituents of an offence punishable under Section 304A
of the
Indian Penal Code. They are something which cannote
recklessness, lack of care, throwing to winds the procedural
requirements and similar such other factors. In the instant case,
the doctors respondent
Nos.3 and 4, appear to have made some or
other examination of the patient and then only these doctors had
come to a conclusion about what and how should they diagnose
the ailment of Sheela and accordingly diagnosed and treated her.
As said earlier, this is not a case of diagnosis made and treatment
given in total contrast to result of patient's clinical and other
examination or in absence of it. If Dr. Arvind Bhamkar has given a
different opinion, it would not mean that Dr. Laxmi Jawanjal,
Dr. Deepak Gadge and Dr. Sushama Gadge, the respondents Nos.2
to 4, on their respective parts, were negligent. One has to
understand the difference between negligence and incorrectness of
an opinion. What has happened in this case could either be called
as error of judgment made in goodfaith
without any mala fides or
negligence or a case of conflict of opinions between two sets of
doctors without any criminality attached to either of the sets.
14. The conclusions reached above receive further support
from the material present on record. It is in the nature of opinion
of the Board of Medical Experts set up by Civil Surgeon, Amravati
and there is no dispute about the said opinion. According to this
opinion, the diagnosis made as well as treatment given to the
deceased Sheela by respondent Nos.2 to 4 was proper in the fact
situation of this case. Thus, as rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, in this case, the prima facie
evidence available on record supports the case of respondent Nos.2
to 4 and not the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner.
It then follows that all these facts attract to them the ratio of Jacob
Mathew (supra), and as such, I find that this is a case wherein
there is no credible opinion given by another competent doctor
that the diagnosis had been made in a rash and negligent manner
and so the treatment was given rashly and negligently.
15. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the
impugned orders passed by the both the Courts below are legal and
proper, and they cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. No
interference with them is called for. Criminal Writ Petition
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
16. Rule is discharged.
Print Page
constituents of an offence punishable under Section 304A
of the
Indian Penal Code. They are something which cannote
recklessness, lack of care, throwing to winds the procedural
requirements and similar such other factors. In the instant case,
the doctors respondent
Nos.3 and 4, appear to have made some or
other examination of the patient and then only these doctors had
come to a conclusion about what and how should they diagnose
the ailment of Sheela and accordingly diagnosed and treated her.
As said earlier, this is not a case of diagnosis made and treatment
given in total contrast to result of patient's clinical and other
examination or in absence of it. If Dr. Arvind Bhamkar has given a
different opinion, it would not mean that Dr. Laxmi Jawanjal,
Dr. Deepak Gadge and Dr. Sushama Gadge, the respondents Nos.2
to 4, on their respective parts, were negligent. One has to
understand the difference between negligence and incorrectness of
an opinion. What has happened in this case could either be called
as error of judgment made in goodfaith
without any mala fides or
negligence or a case of conflict of opinions between two sets of
doctors without any criminality attached to either of the sets.
14. The conclusions reached above receive further support
from the material present on record. It is in the nature of opinion
of the Board of Medical Experts set up by Civil Surgeon, Amravati
and there is no dispute about the said opinion. According to this
opinion, the diagnosis made as well as treatment given to the
deceased Sheela by respondent Nos.2 to 4 was proper in the fact
situation of this case. Thus, as rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, in this case, the prima facie
evidence available on record supports the case of respondent Nos.2
to 4 and not the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner.
It then follows that all these facts attract to them the ratio of Jacob
Mathew (supra), and as such, I find that this is a case wherein
there is no credible opinion given by another competent doctor
that the diagnosis had been made in a rash and negligent manner
and so the treatment was given rashly and negligently.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.802 OF 2013
Gautam s/o. Sukhdeorao Sadanshiv,
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 19 th JANUARY, 2015 .
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)2237
1. Heard. Smt. V.P.Thakare, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. A.K. Bangadkar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent No.1, Mr. M.A.Vaishnav, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. R.J.Mirza, learned counsel for
the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent.
4. This petition has been filed challenging refusal of
learned Magistrate to issue process for an offence punishable under
Section 304A
of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent
Nos.2,3 and 4, who have been made as accused Nos.1,3 and 4
respectively in the Criminal Complaint No.645/2009 filed by the
petitioner against them before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Achalpur, District Amravati. This Criminal Writ Petition also
challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Achalpur on 19.1.2013 in the criminal revision preferred
against the order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, thereby confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Achalpur.
5. Facts of the case, in nut shell are as under :
(i) Petitioner is the unfortunate husband of deceased
Sheela, who, according to the petitionercomplainant
was the
victim of medical negligence.
(ii) It so happened that on 20.1.2007 deceased Sheela, aged
about 45 years, developed heavy bleeding. Therefore, petitioner
took her to hospital of respondent No.3 for treatment. She was
admitted there and administered treatment, but to no avail. She
was then taken on the advise of respondent No.3, to the hospital of
respondent No.4 at Pathrot on 21.2.2007 where she was treated as
indoor patient till 2.2.2007. There also her condition dit not
improve rather, it stated deteriorating. Therefore, petitioner
removed deceased Sheela to hospital of respondent No.2 at
Paratwada, where as advised by respondent No.2, sonography and
pathological tests of samples of blood and urine of patient were got
conducted. While sonography was conducted by respondent No.2
herself, blood and urine tests were done by Dr. Chandrashekhar
Daud. Thereafter, respondent No.2 started the treatment of
deceased Sheela. However, condition of Sheela deteriorated
further and, therefore, petitioner took her on 10.2.2007 to hospital
of Dr. Bhamkar. Dr. Bhamkar got conducted again pathological
tests of samples of blood and urine of Sheela and expressed an
opinion that there was possibility of lukemia. He advised that
patient be taken to Government Medical College (GMC), Nagpur.
As advised, Sheela was brought to G.M.C. On 10.2.2007 itself
where her C.T. Scan was taken and then she was given treatment.
However, on 12.2.2007 deceased Sheela passed away.
(iii) Petitioner felt that his wife had died due to sheer
negligence of respondent Nos.2,3,4 and Dr. Chandrashekar Daud.
He alleged that negligence of respondent Nos.3 and 4 was evident
because they treated Shela without obtaining reports of
sonography and pathological tests; negligence of Dr.
Chandrashekar Daud was in his failure to detect lukemia in the
blood test conducted by him; and negligence of respondent No.2
lay in her wring diagnosis and treatment.
(iv) Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint on 1.3.2007
against said four doctors at Police Station Paratwada alleging
commission of offence of causing death by negligence punishable
under Section 304A
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. But, as Police did not prosecute them by filing a
chargesheet,
petitioner filed a complaint against the doctors
before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, Distt.
Amravati for proceeding against them for commission of said
offence. In the complaint respondent No.2 was arraigned as
accused No.1, Dr. Chandrashekar Daud as accused No.2 and
respondent Nos.3 and 4 as accused Nos.3 and 4. Incidently, during
pendency of the complaint, petitioner withdrew the complaint
against accused No.2 after having reached amicable settlement
with him through mediation.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that following the spirit of the observations of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and
another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180, the petitioner, in order to
show existence of credible opinion of other doctor that respondent
Nos.3 and 4 were negligent, had invited attention of the learned
Magistrate to the statements of all the accused persons and also to
the statement of one Dr. Bhamkar recorded by Police, which
indicated that the diagnosis of respondent Nos.2 to 4 was not
correct and was not based upon the blood and urine reports.
However, these facts, learned counsel further submits, have not
been properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate. She submits
that even though the petitioner succeeded in establishing existence
of prima facie case as regards rashness and negligence on the part
of medical professionals that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are, the
learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge
ignored the same and refused to issue process against these
respondentsaccused
persons.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits
that there is an opinion given by the Board of Doctors consisting of
three doctors on the panel, which shows that there was no
negligence on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in diagnosing
and treating deceased Sheela wife of the petitioner and, therefore,
as held by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Jakob Mathew, there is
available on record credible opinion of another doctor confirming
diagnosis and line of treatment adopted by the these respondents
thereby showing hollowness of the allegations of the petitioner
against these respondents.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1/State has adopted the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner, though has also submitted that approximate order be
passed.
9. There are statements recorded by the Police during the
course of investigation into the first complaint of the petitioner that
did not end up in filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
These statements include statements of Dr. Deepak Gadge (accused
No.3respondent
No.3), Dr. Sau. Laxmi Jawanjal (accused No.1respondent
No.2), Dr. Arvind Mahadeo Bhamkar, another doctor
who had treated the patient deceased Sheela and some other
persons. Statements of said doctors, copies of which are filed on
record of the case by petitioner, throw some useful light on the
nature of present case. They are in the nature of public
documents and, therefore, can be tooked into in exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
these statements, particularly the statements of Dr. Arvind
Mahadeo Bhamkar, would show that there was wrong diagnosis
made and wrong treatment given by Dr. Sau. Laxmi Jawanjal,
Dr. Deepak Gadge and Dr. Sushama Gadge as regards the ailment
suffered by deceased Sheela and, therefore, it amounted to
rashness and negligence on their part.
11. The afore stated argument can hardly be accepted for
the simple reason that in this case there is no material present on
record to show that diagnosis of deceased Sheela made by
respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 was not even based on her clinical
examination, nor is it the case of the petitioner. In such a case,
statement of these doctors would have to accepted as bringing out
the true facts of the case. Dr. Deepak Gadge as well as Dr. Mrs.
Laxmi Jawanjal both have stated that after seeing deceased Sheela
by them and respondent No.4, they diagnosed the ailment the way
they did and accordingly they treated the patientdeceased
Sheela.
This shows that these doctors did what they, in their opinion made
after examining the patient, thought to be the diagnosis of the
patient and also the proper treatment of the patient. A particular
line of treatment was adopted by them as it was considered
appropriate and necessary to improve the condition of deceased
Sheela. In doing so, if some error of judgment had occurred,
which perhaps may have occurred, it was only a mistake made in
good faith, not resulting from any negligence, much less criminal
negligence. There can be an error of judgment but as long as the
error is not shown to be the result of lack of as much degree of care
a medical professional is expected to exercise, which lack of care
has not been shown by evidence collected in this case, rather the
evidence prima facie suggests exercise of reasonable care, the error
of judgment would not turn itself into criminal negligence requisite
for initiating criminal prosecution. Therefore, this cannot be said
to be a case of medical negligence.
12. There can be another scenario. In a given case, it may
happen that two doctors have different opinions about the ailment
being suffered by a patient and they may also differ on the line of
treatment to be adopted for treating such a patient. Could it then
be said that because of difference of opinions, both the doctors are
criminally liable being negligent ? Answer would have to be given
as in the negative because both the doctors being professionals are
entitled to form their opinions after duly considering the result of
examination of the patient. If such opinions are not based upon
some objective material before the professionals or are in
ignorance of the same, and result in some damage or loss, then
only could they be said to assume attributes of negligence
sufficient to prosecute the professionals under criminal law. What
is a case of criminal negligence and what is not, therefore, always
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and has to
be ascertained from all the relevant facts and circumstances taken
together.
13. Elements of rashness and negligence are essential
constituents of an offence punishable under Section 304A
of the
Indian Penal Code. They are something which cannote
recklessness, lack of care, throwing to winds the procedural
requirements and similar such other factors. In the instant case,
the doctors respondent
Nos.3 and 4, appear to have made some or
other examination of the patient and then only these doctors had
come to a conclusion about what and how should they diagnose
the ailment of Sheela and accordingly diagnosed and treated her.
As said earlier, this is not a case of diagnosis made and treatment
given in total contrast to result of patient's clinical and other
examination or in absence of it. If Dr. Arvind Bhamkar has given a
different opinion, it would not mean that Dr. Laxmi Jawanjal,
Dr. Deepak Gadge and Dr. Sushama Gadge, the respondents Nos.2
to 4, on their respective parts, were negligent. One has to
understand the difference between negligence and incorrectness of
an opinion. What has happened in this case could either be called
as error of judgment made in goodfaith
without any mala fides or
negligence or a case of conflict of opinions between two sets of
doctors without any criminality attached to either of the sets.
14. The conclusions reached above receive further support
from the material present on record. It is in the nature of opinion
of the Board of Medical Experts set up by Civil Surgeon, Amravati
and there is no dispute about the said opinion. According to this
opinion, the diagnosis made as well as treatment given to the
deceased Sheela by respondent Nos.2 to 4 was proper in the fact
situation of this case. Thus, as rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, in this case, the prima facie
evidence available on record supports the case of respondent Nos.2
to 4 and not the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner.
It then follows that all these facts attract to them the ratio of Jacob
Mathew (supra), and as such, I find that this is a case wherein
there is no credible opinion given by another competent doctor
that the diagnosis had been made in a rash and negligent manner
and so the treatment was given rashly and negligently.
15. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the
impugned orders passed by the both the Courts below are legal and
proper, and they cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. No
interference with them is called for. Criminal Writ Petition
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
16. Rule is discharged.
No comments:
Post a Comment