The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling on medical negligence, has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) and all subsequent criminal proceedings against four doctors from Apollo Hospital. The court held that criminal proceedings for medical negligence cannot be sustained when a duly constituted State Medical Board of experts has found no evidence of negligence on the part of the treating doctors.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, allowed the petition filed by Dr. Rajib Lochan Bhanja, Dr. Sunil Kumar Kedia, Dr. Devendra Singh, and Manoj Kumar Rai, thereby setting aside the criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a complaint lodged by Paramjeet Singh Chabra, the father of the deceased, Goldy Chhabra alias Gurveen Singh Chhabra. According to the complaint, the deceased visited Apollo Hospital in Bilaspur on December 25, 2016, for medical treatment. After a preliminary examination, he was hospitalized. The complainant alleged that the patient was “completely normal” and conversing with family members.
The petitioners began treating the deceased, administering various medications. Subsequently, the doctors advised the family that the patient required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) treatment and he was shifted accordingly. On December 26, 2016, the team of doctors informed the family that Goldy Chhabra had passed away. The father alleged that his son’s death was a result of negligence committed by the treating doctors.
An FIR (No. 1342/23) was registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, on October 7, 2023, nearly seven years after the incident, for an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed on April 15, 2024, for offences under Sections 304-A, 201 read with 34 of the IPC, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the same on April 19, 2024. The doctors then moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Sunil Otwani, argued that the patient was admitted in a critical condition and passed away on December 26, 2016, due to multiple organ failure. An autopsy was conducted, and the viscera report did not indicate any residual of sulphas poison.
It was submitted that the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) had constituted a State Medical Board in 2023, consisting of five expert doctors including a cardiologist, professor of medicine, professor of general surgery, assistant professor of gastrology, and a professor of forensic medicine. This committee opined that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners. However, the police authorities sought another opinion from a medico-legal expert in the police department, Dr. Vikash Kumar Dhruv, who pointed out certain procedural deficiencies. The petitioners argued that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about seven years and was an abuse of the process of law intended to harass them. They placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab.
Counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was a young man who died due to the negligent acts of the petitioners. It was argued that the police authorities rightly obtained another opinion from Dr. Vikash Kumar Dhruv, which found ingredients of negligence, justifying the registration of the FIR.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously examined the sequence of events. The deceased was admitted on December 25, 2016, and died the next day. An autopsy was conducted on December 27, 2016, and the viscera report, obtained later, found no poison.
The pivotal point in the court’s analysis was the report of the State Medical Board constituted by the DME on May 25, 2023. The bench noted that this committee of five qualified experts had submitted a report opining that “there is no evidence of medical negligence on the part of the treating Doctors.” The court observed that the expert committee concluded “that the patient was given appropriate treatment and apparent evidence of medical negligence is not present and it may be difficult to arrive at exact diagnosis & cause of death.”
The court expressed its disapproval of the police’s subsequent action, stating, “In spite of categorical opinion submitted by the qualified expert Doctors of the State Medical Board and that too without any reasonable cause and explanation, the police authorities obtained another opinion from Dr. Vikash Kumar Dhruv who found certain irregularities on the part of the petitioners.”
The bench extensively quoted the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, which established a higher threshold for criminal negligence against medical professionals. The High Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s observation that for negligence to amount to a criminal offence, “the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree.” The court also cited the observation that a professional cannot be held liable for negligence “merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.”
The judgment further noted, “Once the expert team of doctors constituted by the DME has opined that no negligence found on the part of the petitioners while treating the deceased, only on the basis of the opinion of Dr. Vikash Kumar Dhruv, lodging of report against the petitioners is not sustainable.”
Decision
Applying these established legal principles, the High Court concluded that the allegations did not make out a case of criminal rashness or negligence. The court found that prosecuting the doctors based on a single opinion that contradicted the findings of an expert medical board was unjustified.
“Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned herein above, this CRMP stands allowed,” the court ordered.
Consequently, the court quashed FIR No. 1342/2023, the charge sheet dated April 15, 2024, and all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2035/2024 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, against the petitioner doctors.
