The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed prosecution against a doctor in absence of an Expert Committee Report.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a case of medical negligence where the patient’s leg had to be amputated, has quashed prosecution citing absence of an Expert Committee Report. The facts leading to the present petition under section 482 of the Cr. PC are that respondent No. 2 filed an FIR against the applicant doctor on the allegations that his leg had to be amputated because of the medical negligence of the applicant as the applicant had administered him an injection on his right leg when the respondent no. 2 had gone for treatment for stomach ache. The respondent no. 2 complained that on account of improper treatment given by the applicant, his right leg was amputated and his life had spoiled and accordingly an FIR was registered at police station Kotwali, Dist. Katni and a charge sheet was also filed in the matter before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni. 
 
The applicant doctor filed a quashing petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which on perusal of the record and after hearing both the sides held as under:
 
From the aforementioned principles and decisions relating to medical negligence, with which we agree, it is evident that doctors and nursing homes/hospitals need not be unduly worried about the performance of their functions. The law is a watchdog, and not a bloodhound, and as long as doctors do their duty with reasonable care they will not be held liable even if their treatment was unsuccessful. However every doctor should, for his own interest, carefully read the Code of Medical Ethics which is part of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 issued by the Medical Council of India under section 20-A read with section 3(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
 
A similar view has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Rajan vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and others, reported in 2024 (1) MPLJ Page 1. Thus it is clear that unless and until the committee constituted as per the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew gives its report about the medical negligence of the doctors, the doctor should not be prosecuted. Admittedly respondent No. 2 has not approached the Committee of Experts to prove medical negligence of the applicant. Accordingly, prosecution of the applicant on account of medical negligence cannot be allowed to continue. Resultantly, the charge sheet as well as further proceedings in RCT No. 86/2020 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni against the applicant are hereby set aside. However liberty is granted to respondent no. 2 that if he so desires he can approach the Expert Committee to establish the medical negligence of the applicant doctor. It is made clear that if the Expert Committee comes to a conclusion that there was medical negligence on the part of the applicant doctor, then respondent no. 2 shall be free to take legal remedy which may be available to him.
 

Dr. Rajesh Batra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.