Orissa High Court refuses to quash criminal proceedings against a doctor observing that few doctors are acting in utter disregard to human life for pecuniary advantage.

The Orissa High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against a doctor observing that a prima facie case existed for the trial court to adjudicate upon. The facts leading to the above case are that petitioner was a Doctor and  attached  to  Bhubaneswar  Municipal Corporation Hospital as a Medicine Specialist when on the day of the occurrence one patient by the name of Madhusmita Sahoo  (the “deceased”)  was  admitted  in the Medicine  Ward  of  BMC  Hospital  and  she  was  under the treatment of the petitioner. As the deceased was having low haemoglobin and  her condition  was worsened, her uncle requested the petitioner and staff  of  BMC  Hospital  to  give  her  blood  transfusion immediately  for  her  treatment,  but  although  they assured  to  give  the blood  on  the next day, her condition became  serious  at  about  11  p.m.  on the fateful day and  despite  being  requested  by  Doctor on duty for  several  times,  the  petitioner  did  not  respond and  thereby,  the  informant  also  requested the  petitioner,  but  he  refused  and  asked  him  to contact  with  the Surgery Specialist  to  attend  the  patient  and  the  said  Doctor on being requested over phone assured to direct the petitioner  to  attend  the  patient  immediately,  but unfortunately  the deceased died  in the midnight due to the negligence of the petitioner.
 
In order to pacify and manage the situation, the on duty doctor shifted the deceased with Oxygen support by an Ambulance to Capital Hospital where the Doctor on duty declared the deceased as received dead. After this incident the next day the uncle of the deceased lodged an FIR before the Lingaraj Police Station who registered Case No. 70 of 2009 and entrusted the investigation to the S. I. who after completion  of  investigation placed a charge  sheet  against  the  petitioner.
 
The Counsel for the Petitioner prayed to quash the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner on the ground that had the Ultra Sonography(USG) of abdomen and pelvis of the deceased been  done  in  time, as advised by him, the  diagnosis would have  been  established  and  treatment  could  have been  properly  provided  to  the  deceased as opined by  the District Medical Board (DMB). However the relatives of the deceased being advised in this regard had failed to conduct the USG and thereby, the family members of the patient were negligent. He also submitted that there was absolutely no material against the petitioner to find out any prima facie case U/s. 304-A of IPC.
 
While the counsel representing the state has contended that despite repeated telephone calls and requests made by the on duty doctor, the petitioner refused to come to attend the patient, rather he replied to shift the patient to any private Nursing Home which was  a  clear-cut  violation  of  public  duty and  constitute  gross  negligence  and  the  above  fact stands  justified  by  the  Call  Details  Report  (CDR)  of mobile  phone  number  of  the  petitioner  and  land phone number of the BMC Hospital and the petitioner having not found performed his duty is squarely liable for  gross  negligence  and  the  present  proceeding therefore, should not be quashed. 
 
The High Court Observed thus:
 
“It is true that no sensible professional, more particularly a Doctor would intentionally commit an act or omit to do an act which would result in loss of life.  A medical practitioner faced with an emergency situation would  definitely try his evel  best  to  treat the patient and ordinarily could not leave his patient to die. The position of Doctor in India as accepted by the public generally is next to God, but there are certain instances/aberrations of course a few in number, the medical practitioners are acting in  utter disregard to human life in expectation of pecuniary advantage  to malign in the noble profession.”
 
“On a cumulative assessment and discussion of facts and law as indicated above, it appears to the Court that the Petitioner has not made out a case to show that the criminal proceeding instituted against him in the aforesaid case is an abuse of process of Court and, thereby, is required to be quashed. Hence, it is ordered.”    

Dr. Biswa Mohan Mishra vs. State of Orissa