Doctor accused of delaying surgery leading to foetal death; Court cites “prima facie negligence” and misuse of patient trust
Allahabad: Raising serious concerns over the conduct of private healthcare institutions, the Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a gynaecologist accused of medical negligence, while strongly criticising the trend of treating patients as “ATM machines” in private hospitals.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar made scathing remarks while hearing a petition filed by a doctor seeking to dismiss a summons order issued in a case related to the death of a foetus allegedly caused due to delay in surgery at a private nursing home.
“Private hospitals/nursing homes have started treating patients like guinea pigs or ATM machines—only to extort money. They admit patients even without proper infrastructure or qualified staff,” the court noted.
Negligence Alleged in Absence of Anaesthetist, Delayed Surgery
The case dates back to July 28, 2007, when a pregnant woman was admitted to a nursing home. Despite obtaining surgical consent the next morning, the operation was delayed until 5:30 PM on July 29, by which time the foetus was found dead. The absence of an anaesthetist was cited as the reason for the delay.
The patient’s family alleged that the nursing home admitted the woman despite not having an anaesthetist on call. Following the tragic outcome, an FIR was filed, and a Medical Board was constituted by the Chief Medical Officer. However, the post-mortem report, which cited “prolonged labour” as the cause of death, was not considered by the board, raising further questions about the inquiry’s credibility.
Magistrate Finds Prima Facie Case; Doctor Challenges Proceedings
The trial court, after reviewing the evidence and case diary, found prima facie evidence of negligence and allowed the protest petition filed by the complainant. Summons were issued against the doctor, prompting the accused to approach the High Court to quash the criminal case.
The doctor’s counsel argued that he possessed the necessary qualifications (MBBS, DGO) and cited Supreme Court precedents (Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Dr. Suresh Gupta case) to claim protection for medical professionals in such cases.
Court Finds Contradictions and Delays Unjustified
Rejecting the plea, the Court observed inconsistencies in the doctor’s timeline and highlighted that the surgery was delayed by several hours even after consent was obtained. The doctor claimed that the foetal heartbeat was absent by noon, yet surgery was not performed until late afternoon.
“There is no rationale for the delay. The post-mortem report showing death due to prolonged labour strengthens the allegation of negligence,” the Court stated.
The anaesthetist reportedly received the call only at 3:30 PM, hours after the situation had turned critical. The Court concluded that such delay was avoidable and attributable to the doctor’s negligence.
Distinguishing Civil and Criminal Negligence
While acknowledging that medical professionals deserve protection from frivolous criminal charges, the Court clarified that such protection applies only when reasonable and timely care is provided.
“Criminal liability arises when ordinary care is not exercised by a doctor. The real test is whether the doctor failed to act with the care that any ordinary skilled professional would have shown in similar circumstances,” the bench said.
Private Hospitals Under Fire for Profiteering Practices
The Court also condemned the broader issue of commercial exploitation in private healthcare, stating:
“Many nursing homes lure patients despite lacking proper infrastructure or specialists, only to extort money. Such practices endanger lives and violate the core ethics of medicine.”
Final Order: Let the Trial Continue
Holding that the Magistrate was justified in issuing summons, the High Court ruled that only a full-fledged trial can determine whether the doctor is guilty of the alleged offence. The Court refused to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to interfere at this stage.
“This case reflects not just professional negligence but also malafide intent, as the surgery was delayed without valid reason. A prima facie offence is made out,” the Court concluded.
With this, the petition was dismissed, and the criminal proceedings will continue, potentially setting a precedent for how courts address medical negligence and ethical lapses in the private healthcare sector.
Ask ChatGPT
