M PARVATHI M B B S , DGO, DNB, W/O RAVINDRA V P Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A perusal of the material placed before this Court at this stage, go to show that the petitioners are medical doctors by profession and were working at St. Philomena's Hospital, Bengaluru in the relevant year i.e., 2003. A patient by name Mrs. Swapna who was pregnant, was admitted to the said hospital for treatment on 15.08.2003, on the complaint that she was bleeding. According to the petitioners she was appropriately treated and she delivered to a baby girl on 18.08.2003. Thereafter, she developed complications and died in the hospital on 27.08.2003. Respondent No.2 who is the husband of said deceased Swapna, filed a complaint with respondent No.1-Police alleging that his wife Swapna died due to negligence of the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners apart from producing a certified copy of the order passed by the Karnataka Medical Council in Enquiry No.8/2003 dated 15.11.2007, also canvassed his arguments submitting that the post mortem report in its final opinion opines that the death was due to septicaemia consequent upon the post partum infection of the uterus. However, there are no documents as to the source of infection. The alleged negligence cannot be attributed on the part of the petitioners who were the treating doctors of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the Karnataka Medical Council, on the complaint filed by the present respondent No.2 and also the investigation request made by the complainant-police, have held an enquiry and has warned the doctors holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the St. Philomena's Hospital, Bengaluru. Finally, referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2005) 6 SCC 1, learned counsel submitted that the alleged act of the doctors as stated in the complaint even if it is taken as true on its facial value, would not constitute medical negligence triable under Section 304-A of IPC. As such, taking of very cognizance by the learned Magistrate, that too without any cogent reasons, deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 in his argument submitted that a pregnant lady nearing to the date of delivery complaining of bleeding is not an uncommon factor. As such, when the deceased was admitted to the hospital with the complaint of bleeding the doctors should have properly taken care of her, on the contrary, the doctors were so negligent in sending the said patient for scanning to a private establishment in an auto rickshaw. The medical records as well the complaint go to show that the very same doctors had advised that the deceased should not be moved or allowed to move even to attend her nature's call, in such a situation, sending her to medical scanning in an auto rickshaw is nothing but gross negligence on the part of the doctors. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no history of infection when the patient was admitted to the hospital. Even according to the medical report, the alleged infection was subsequent to the development that has taken place when the patient was under treatment. The cause for infection may be the lack of hygiene or improper sterilization of surgical instruments etc. Learned counsel further stated that the Karnataka Medical Council also has held the present petitioners as medically negligent and which finding has reached its finality, so also, the Consumer Forum which has also held that there is deficiency of service, has proved the case of the complainant that there is medical negligence on the part of the petitioners.