LAWS(CHH)-2010-5-7

PADMINI SINGH Vs. STATE OF C G

Decided On May 12, 2010
PADMINI SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the Petitioner is praying for the following relief(s):

(2.) Facts lying in narrow compass go thus. On 25.05.2003 a complaint was made by one Sivesh Kumar Shukla to Police Station. City Kotwali, Durg alleging that on 24.05.2003 he along with his wife namely late Smt. Santosh Shukla who was having labour pain, went to District Hospital, Durg at about 10.30 p.m. The complaint further mentions that after examination, his wife was admitted in the hospital and on 25.05.2003 at about 8.45 a.m. she delivered a male child in the normal course. The complaint further says that the delivery was performed by staff nurse namely Usha Das and at that time no doctor was available. Complaint further says that in between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 25.05.2003 the doctors had attended his wife as also the child. At about 12 noon the nurse on duty had informed the complainant that his wife needed blood and therefore the same had to be arranged. As per the complaint, the complainant immediately called his brother-in-law, father-in-law and other persons for giving blood as their blood group was same to that of his wife. Subsequently, they went to the blood bank, the slip was shown to the doctor and at about 1.30 p.m. the blood was handed over to the nurse on duty namely Usha Das. It is alleged that the said nurse had demanded some money from the complainant and in spite of receiving the same, she did not undertake blood transfusion on the wife of the complainant. The complaint further alleges when the other nurse on duty namely Miss Tiwari came, she also demanded money for transfusion of blood and by that time the condition of the wife of the complainant had deteriorated. It is alleged that no doctor had treated her from 12 noon to 5 p.m. According to the complaint, even after arrival of the doctors correct information was not given to him and ultimately on account of their negligence his wife died. Based on this F.I.R, investigation was done by the police and on completion thereof, challan was filed on 31.11.2003 against the Petitioner herein. Dr. Vrinda Mandge. Dr. Shyamli Rai and nurse Usha Das. for an offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. Vide order dated 24.08.2006. particulars of charge were framed.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that looking to the gravity of the complaint and anxiety of the complainant, post mortem of the deceased was performed by a team of three doctors - Dr. S. A. Khan, Dr. V. Gupta and Dr. B. S. Baghel and according to the post mortem report dated 26.05.2003 the cause of death was post partum hemorrhage (PPH). She submits that as per the medical jurisprudence, maternity death occurs due to post partum hemorrhage where the patient suffers excessive bleeding from placental implantation site and trauma to the genital tract and adjacent structure or both. She submits that post partum hemorrhage is a description of an event and not diagnosis. According to her, the post partum hemorrhage cannot always be prevented but it can be reduced only and at times the blood loss is so rapid and brisk that the death may occur within a few minutes. Referring to the text book of Obstretian, counsel for the Petitioner submits that in such a situation the criminal liability of the doctors or the staff nurse cannot be fixed for an offence under Section 304-A IPC as the standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as can be described as gross negligence or recklessness to bring the case in hand within the definition of said provision. She submits that every mishap or accident in the hospital is not a gross act of negligence on the part of doctor. According to her the degree of negligence might create a civil liability but not the criminal one particularly under Section 304-A IPC. She submits that as per the enquiry report submitted by the joint director of Health and Medical Services and one expert Gynecologist of District hospital. Raipur. the only act attributed to the Petitioner is that while filling the requisition slip tor blood it was not fully filled up by her.