Mahima
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently restated the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, “To attract the criminal liability, it was necessary on the part of the prosecution to bring on record the material of such nature which proves gross negligence on the part of the applicant. Mere error of judgment is not sufficient to attract criminal liability.”
The division bench of Justices ZA Haq and Amit B Borkar set aside the charge sheet and criminal proceedings based on an FIR alleging death of a woman due to negligence and observed, “We are of the opinion that the applicant has not committed gross negligence while providing treatment to the victim.”
The FIR was lodged around seven years ago against a 65-years-old Dr. Bhagirath Bansilal Jaju, alleging that a woman died while he operated her for curating and removing incomplete abortion.
It was alleged that the death of woman was a result of excessive bleeding as proper care wasn’t taken.
The report of civil surgeon explains that the applicant was not negligent of the patient as curating was done to save the victims’ life and that the woman lost her life due to hemorrhagic shock.
The Inspection Committee of five medical experts also averred that the treatment given to the victim was appropriate.
The counsel for the applicant, Ashish Chavan, further submitted that the applicant was licensed under Medical termination of Pregnancy Act and the cause of death of the woman was in accordance with the condition in which she was admitted.
After hearing the submissions, the bench noted, “There is no allegation against the applicant that the applicant has done something, which the medical professional in the ordinary senses has not done or failed to do so. We are satisfied that the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are not fulfilled in the present case.”
