A significant feature of managing private complaints against doctors accused of carelessness was recently explained by the Jharkhand High Court. The Court stressed in a landmark decision that these types of complaints cannot be considered unless there is prima facie evidence backed by the reliable opinion of another physician. This ruling was made in the course of addressing a plea to suppress criminal proceedings, which included an order recognizing the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with negligently causing death.In support of this position, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, sitting as a single bench, cited two significant Supreme Court rulings. He referenced the cases of Martin F. D’Souza v. Md. Ishfaq and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab. While the latter stressed the need of referring claims of medical negligence to a committee of specialized doctors or a competent doctor for a trustworthy opinion, the former set forth standards for prosecuting doctors for criminal rashness or medical negligence.
The complaint brought by a deceased woman’s younger son provided the factual basis for the Court’s ruling. According to the lawsuit, the woman passed away as a result of the accused doctors’ egregious medical negligence while she was a patient. After consulting with the petitioner’s physician, the patient—who had a urinary tract infection and elevated blood sugar—was admitted to the Critical Care Unit (CCU). According to the complaint, the hospital only prescribed drugs that could be purchased from a partner store, provided subpar care, and continued to collect money even after the patient passed away. It was also claimed that the patient died as a result of improper glucose measurement equipment and overuse of insulin.
After hearing the arguments, the High Court stated that it would be an abuse of the judicial system to allow the proceedings to proceed in the absence of reliable evidence. APP Fahad Allam and Advocate Praveen Shankar Prasad represented the opposing parties, while Advocate Rajeev Kumar Sinha represented the petitioner.
The opinion by Justice Dwivedi reaffirmed that a private complaint against a physician must be supported by prima facie evidence from another member of the medical community in order to be considered. This provision makes ensuring that claims of medical malpractice are substantiated by reliable medical advice rather than being made on the spur of the moment. This defense attempts to shield medical professionals from unfounded charges that could damage their reputation and careers.
The Court’s reliance on rulings from the Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of handling medical negligence matters with balance. The Supreme Court established the guidelines for prosecuting physicians in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, emphasizing the need to shield them from excessive intimidation while maintaining accountability for actual instances of carelessness. In Martin F. D’Souza v. Md. Ishfaq, the focus was on getting a professional opinion before filing allegations of negligence in order to make sure that only cases with solid evidence move forward with prosecution.
Thus, the Jharkhand High Court’s decision is consistent with these principles, reiterating the requirement that a medical expert conduct a preliminary assessment prior to considering the filing of criminal charges against doctors. This strategy guarantees that justice is served in actual instances of medical malpractice while simultaneously protecting the integrity of the medical community.
The criminal proceedings against the doctor petitioner were quashed by the Court, emphasizing the significance of reliable evidence and expert opinion in determining the validity of medical negligence allegations. This ruling serves as a reminder of the legal protections that doctors are subject to against baseless allegations, all the while guaranteeing that patients’ rights are upheld via a rigorous and equitable legal process.
SOURCE:
VERDICTUM
