VINOD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25th March, 2009 passed by Sh. R.B. Singh learned ASJ in case titled State v. Dr. Dhananjay Kumar Etc. bearing FIR No. 589/2008 P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi wherein the learned Magistrate has directed framing of charges against the petitioner under Section 304A IPC r/w Section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 3rd May, 2006, deceased Radhey Shyam was suffering from high fever and vomiting. He went to one Dr. Dhananjay Kumar. Dr. Kumar administered injection to Radhey Shyam. The condition of Radhey Shyam instead of improving started deteriorating and he developed rashes allover his body. Radhey Shyam was taken to Manthan hospital a nearby Nursing Home by his family members where he was administered injections by Dr. Vinod Gupta, the present petitioner. Since the condition of the patient did not improve he was referred to DDU Hospital. The deceased being taken to DDU hospital by his wife Smt. Savitri along with Ram Niwas who was the owner of the hospital and one more person Ram Niwas and that person got down midway under the pretext of getting some money and in the process by the time the deceased was brought to DDU hospital he had already expired. A case under 304A IPC was registered against Dr. Vinod Kumar and D.K. Maurya. After investigation, the charge- sheet was filed and the learned Magistrate on 25th March, 2009 framed charges.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Dr. Vinod Kumar could not be charged under Section 304A IPC as he did not treat the patient at all. It was also urged that even if it is assumed that the deceased was treated by Dr. Vinod Kumar even then no case of medical negligence could be made out because the petitioner tried his level best to save the deceased. It is further urged that when the patient was brought to the hospital, he had already expired. It was contended by the learned counsel that at the time framing of charge by the learned Magistrate has ignored the ratio of the judgment in the case titled Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down the guidelines for prosecuting the medical professionals for offences involving criminal negligence. It was urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner Dr. Vinod Gupta had taken due care and attention while treating the patient and since his condition had already deteriorated, the petitioner instead of treating the patient referred him to DDU hospital.