GANESH MANI Vs. SHIKHA SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated 19th december 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate crl. Rev. P. No. 218 of 2008 Page 1 of 18 (MM), New Delhi holding that there was material on record to charge the Petitioner and other accused for the offences under Sections 336/337/471 read with 34 IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the complainant Satish Kumar batra retired as Secretary, Social Welfare, Government of Delhi, in 1994. He had a cardiac problem and was admitted to the National heart Institute (NHI), East of Kailash, Delhi on 24th May 1998. He was advised a bypass surgery by the NHI. It was thought that the apollo Hospital (A-2) which is run by the Indraprastha Medical corporation Ltd. (A-1) would be a safer place. On 30th May 1998 the complainant the complainant was shifted to Apollo Hospital for his surgery. The Petitioner Dr. Ganesh Mani (A-3), along with Dr. S. K. Gupta, Senior Cardiologist (A-4) and Dr. A. M. Dua (A-5) decided that the bypass surgery would be done on 1 st June 1998. The bypass surgery performed on that day resulted in the complainant having to spend an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,22,123. 03 as fees and Rs. 36,750 for medicines. On 11th June 1998 the complainant was discharged having been found fit. The complainant alleges that the discharge report dated 11th June 1998 was false. Inter alia, it is alleged that there were 70 entries regarding blood pressure in the medical chart of the complainant for the period 8th to 11th June 1998 and the blood pressure touched 120/80 only once in the intervening night of 8 th/9th June 1998. It was 110/70, 100/64 and 90/65 on 8th, 9th and 10th May 1998 respectively. According to the complainant the discharge report nevertheless reflected his blood pressure to be 120/80 as if it was for a normal person. The other criticism of the discharge summary was that it failed to indicate the ejection fraction, the TLC (which was a measure of infection), information about sputum infection and was generally deficient in all vital signs including blood cholesterol. The allegation is that at the time of discharge the complainant had sputum infection and was suffering from fever. According to the complainant a 3 to A5, in failing to indicate the above factors in the discharge summary, acted in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger the life and personal safety of the Petitioner.

(3.) ACCORDING to the complainant he suffered low-grade fever on 17th and 23rd June 1998 and consulted A-5. On the advice of A-3 and A-5 he was again admitted to Apollo Hospital on 29th June 1998 and was discharged on 30th June 1998. The complainant paid Rs. 33,760 to A-2 but did not get any relief during this treatment. It is alleged that A-3 to a-5 were criminally negligent in discharging the complainant on 30th june 1998 without recording the sputum infection and another vital signs and suppressing the fact that TLC was about 15,000.