Pvt Hospitals Treat Patients As ATMs To Extract Money': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Doctor Accused Of Medical Negligence

 

Case Summary

  • Parties:

    • Applicant: Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai (Gynecologist)

    • Opposite Parties: State of U.P. & Complainant (brother-in-law of patient)

  • Prayer: Quash summoning order (15.09.2008) and criminal proceedings under Sections 304A (causing death by negligence), 315 (act done with intent to prevent child being born alive), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC.

  • Core Allegation: Medical negligence leading to fetal death during delivery at Dr. Rai’s nursing home.

Key Facts

  1. Incident:

    • Patient admitted on 28.07.2007 for delivery; consent for surgery obtained at 11:00 AM on 29.07.2007.

    • Surgery delayed until 5:30 PM despite consent.

    • Fetus declared dead post-surgery.

    • Complainant alleges Dr. Rai’s staff assaulted family members and demanded extra payment.

  2. Investigations:

    • Medical Board Report (17.11.2007): Cleared Dr. Rai of negligence.

    • Contradictions:

      • Dr. Rai gave conflicting timelines for patient admission/surgery.

      • Post-mortem report cited "prolonged labour" as cause of fetal death (not presented to Medical Board).

      • Two conflicting Operation Theatre (OT) notes surfaced, suggesting fabrication.

    • Anaesthetist’s Statement: Called only at 3:30 PM, surgery began at 5:30 PM.

Arguments

  • Dr. Rai’s Defense:

    • Relied on Medical Board’s clean chit and precedents (Jacob Mathew, Suresh Gupta):

      "Criminal negligence requires gross recklessness, not mere error of judgment."

    • Alleged the case was filed to extort money.

  • Complainant’s Case:

    • Consent given at 11:00 AM, but surgery delayed due to absence of anaesthetist.

    • 5-hour delay constituted gross negligence.

    • Medical Board ignored post-mortem report and fabricated OT notes.

Court’s Findings

  1. Prima Facie Negligence Established:

    • Delay in surgery despite consent + fetal death due to "prolonged labour" indicated culpable delay.

    • Medical Board’s report was unreliable as it excluded critical evidence (post-mortem report, OT notes).

  2. Legal Principles Applied:

    • Criminal Negligence: Requires "gross" or "reckless" conduct (Jacob Mathew).

    • Systemic Failure: Dr. Rai’s nursing home lacked essential infrastructure (anaesthetist), luring patients commercially.

      "Private hospitals cannot exploit patients without adequate facilities."

    • Summoning Valid: Evidence contradictions must be tested during trial, not quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

  3. Dismissal Grounds:

    • Sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with trial.

    • Proceedings not frivolous (Bhajan Lal guidelines not satisfied).

Conclusion

  • Application Dismissed (24.07.2025): Trial to proceed.

  • Critical Observations:

    • Hospitals must maintain readiness (e.g., anaesthetist availability) before admitting patients.

    • Medical Boards must examine all evidence (e.g., post-mortem reports) impartially.

    • Conflicting evidence (OT notes, timelines) warrants trial, not quashing.

Key Precedents:

  • Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)

  • Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital (2010)

  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)

Final Note:

"Protecting doctors from frivolous cases is essential, but not when negligence stems from commercial greed over patient safety."





https://t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/152 find down load


Follow on Social Media Youtube Link www.youtube.com/@SajjadHusainLawAssociates Facebook Page Link https://www.facebook.com/advocatesajjadofficial Insta Link https://www.instagram.com/sajjad_husain_law_associates/ Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/sajjad-husain-associates-law WhatsApp Link https://wa.me/message/MH5RUHZAUP2ID1 Google My Business Link https://wa.me/message/MH5RUHZAUP2ID1 Tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/dashboard Twitter Link https://twitter.com/home E-mail ID advocatesajjad@mail.com Sajjad Husain Law Associates Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block - C, High Court Lucknow UP India PIN 226010 WhatsApp & Mobile No. 7080909786 E-Mail ID advocatesajjad@gmail.com

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pass port officer can retain and stop, kept pending, timely released ordered by Supreme Court of India SPL Cri 4297 of 2023

 Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vishal Shah vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. of 2025, arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4297 of 2023), made significant observations and rulings regarding the impounding of the appellant's passport . Here is a detailed summary of the Court's findings and orders specifically related to the passport issue: Key Facts Related to Passport: Passport Impounding : The appellant's passport was impounded on October 3, 2018 , by the Indian authorities under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 . This action was taken based on the multiple criminal and civil cases filed by the respondent (Monalisha Gupta) against the appellant and his family members. Challenge to Impounding : The appellant challenged the impounding of his passport before the Calcutta High Court through a writ petition (WPA No. 4743 of 2020). However, the High Court dismissed the petition on January 15, 2021 , and upheld the impounding, barring the appellant from...
Read more

Victim Has Right To Participate In Trial But No Right To Be Impleaded In Criminal Revision: Delhi High Court Nupur Thapliyal 25 May 2024 4:20 PM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19.03.2024 Pronounced on: 24.05.2024 + CRL.M.C. 8758/2023 & CRL.M.A. 7381/2024 VLS FINANCE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Bharat Chugh, Mr.Jai Allagh, Mr.Maanish M. Choudhary, Mr.Ashok Kr. Sharma, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP for R-1/State. Mr.Vijay Agarwal, Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Mr.Jatin S.Sethi, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA J U D G M E N T    The judgment primarily addresses the issue of whether a victim or complainant in a criminal case has the right to be impleaded as a party in revision petitions and other criminal proceedings. The court's decision rests on the interpretation of several sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and relevant case law. Key Points of the Judgment: Right to be Heard vs. Right to be Impleaded: The court distinguished between the right to be heard and the right to be impleaded as a party in criminal...
Read more

No permission of Court is required for passport even if criminal is under investigation or pending for trail in Court Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Writ C No. 5587 of 2024 (Umapati Vs. union of India & Ors) Justice Alok Mathur and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal J

Image
  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k38ZX85i9zEI39YQzcCVX33qlxX1pwZZ/view?usp=drivesdk 1.  Allahabad High Court sitting at Lucknow has held that pass port authority has no power to kept pending the passport application of citizens  2. Time bound disposal is mandatory  3. Pendency of criminal case is no ground to pending and kept the matter in pending  4. Pass port is right of citizen  5. Holding passport is fundamental right of citizens 
Read more