MARY ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C.C.No. 383 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Ernakulam, where they face allegations under 304A r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them are medical officers attached to the Cochin Port Trust hospital, Ernakulam.

(2.) Crime No.103 of 2005 of Harbour Police Station was registered pursuant to sad demise of Helan Joseph at the age of 43 years, who is the wife of the 2nd respondent, M.R. Joseph, who is Tally Supervisor, employed in the Port Trust. His wife was taken to the hospital on 15/7/2004, with complaints of misplaced multi load copper-T with anaemia and hypertension. On 22/7/2004, she was admitted in hospital for removing the copper-T but the copper-T could not be located in the abdominal cavity and on investigation it was found that her uterus was studded with multiple fibroids. Thereafter, on 23/7/2004, she was subjected to key hole surgery under general anaesthesia but the copper-T could not be located. On 24/7/2004, since the patient developed hypotension and as abdominal distension was increasing, on 25/7/2004, she was subjected to total abdominal hysterectomy under general anaesthesia. She continued in the hospital but since her condition became worse, was shifted to the Lakeshore hospital on 28/7/2004. After 11 days, on 6/8/2004 she died while undergoing treatment in Lakeshore hospital. After a period of about one year, on 26/7/2005 the 2nd respondent instituted a complaint before the court alleging medical negligence as the cause of death of Helan Joseph. The complaint was forwarded to the police for registering a crime under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus Crime No.103/2005 was registered in Harbour Police Station. Even though Dr.Joly Thomas, an anaesthetists was also shown as the 3rd accused, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioners as accused 1 and 2, alleging offence punishable under Sec. 304A r/w Sec. 34 IPC. The petitioners have moved this Court challenging the correctness of the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer for quashing the proceedings under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor besides Sri.Aboobacker, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent.