KUSUM DAVID KHARAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One P.S. Maker was admitted at Bhatia General Hospital on the evening of 26th August, 1969, for administering two Glucose bottles on the advice of his family doctor, Dr. Dalal. Arrangements for his admission in the Hospital were made by Dr. Dalal directly through the House Surgeon, accused No. 1, Dr. Dalal himself being Honorary Surgeon of the Hospital. He was admitted in Special Room No. 115-A as Class II patient. His wife, the complainant, and his son Anil accompanied him. Unfortunately, this infusion of Glucose seems to have had adverse reactions, contrary to the expectation. There is controversy whether proper precautions were taken before the infusion and whether immediate steps were taken to stop the infusion and the reaction and whether any senior doctor actually was called and whether the Complainant objected to his treatment and if patient entered into coma at 2.00 a.m. that night. It is, therefore, common ground that rigours stopped after two injections and subsequent fever also subsided and from 11.00 a.m. on 27-8-1969 good treatment was given and there was short lived improvement. Maker, however, died on 30th in the Hospital, cause of death shown in the records being Infective Hepatitis and Hepatico Renal failure.

(2.) After about five weeks, on or about 9th October, 1969, a complaint by post, signed by the Complainant on 7th, was received by the Chief Presidency Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as C. P. M.) alleging negligence against the House Surgeon, accused No. 1, the nurse, accused No. 2, and Dr. Dalal. The learned C.P.M. called for a report from the police. Case papers and records from the Hospital seem to have been seized and concerned Doctors and other witnesses seem to have been examined in the course of this investigation. "No offence" report was submitted by the police. The learned C.P.M., however, issued process against the two accused. In due course, a charge was framed against both the accused on 25th March, 1971, for an offence under section 304-A I.P.C. It is first alleged that the Glucose saline was intravenously administered without taking the precaution of suppressing his immune sensitivity, though the patient, Maker, was suffering from jaundice, giving rise to anaphylactic shock. As accused No. 2 is alone alleged to have processed this infusion, this part of the charge is mainly directed against her, accused No. 1's alleged negligence being in allowing the nurse, accused No. 2, to do it herself. It is, secondly, alleged that no adequate and immediate treatment was given for the said shock to arrest the deterioration during the reversible pre-coma period on the night of 26th and 27th August, 1969. This part of the charge is obviously directed mainly against accused No. 1, the doctor.

(3.) In support of her case, the complainant examined herself, her son Anil and one Dr. Karamchandani, as Medical Expert. Other evidence consists of five formal witnesses examined either to produce the hospital record or prove the bills for medicine and hospital expenditure, about which there is little controversy.