ASHOK LADHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr.P.C.) against the order dated 7.10.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.6/2016 whereby the order dated 7.11.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore framing charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.19223/2015 has been affirmed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Gastroenterology Surgeon practicing in Indore. On 3.7.2012 Kamal Parmar (deceased) was admitted as an emergency case by Dr. Manish Neema, Consultant Heamatologist at Vishesh Hospital. Kamal Parmar was suffering from severe sickle cell anemia. He was having severe abdominal pain when he was admitted at Vishesh hospital. On 6.7.2012 Dr. Neema requested the petitioner to surgically removed both the enlarged spleen and the gall bladder which was causing pain and fever to the deceased. On 7.7.2012 Kamal was operated and fixed a wide bore abdominal tube drain in the left side of the upper abdomen to check for any post-operative bleeding of which there was done. Around 7.30 p.m., Kamal Parmar became unconscious and he was shifted to I.C.U. However, he has died on 8.7.2012.

(3.) The postmortem of the deceased was performed a short gastric artery was found cut and open. The cause of death was opined as shock and haemorrhage from one operated short gastric artery. Then, a medical Board was constituted to examine that if there was negligence in the surgery done by the petitioner and gave a report dated 23.10.2013 that Kamal Parmar has died due to negligence of the petitioner. On the basis of this Court, the Police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A of the IPC and the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 7.11.2015 read out the substance of accusation against the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by the impugned order, which is a subject matter of challenge before this Court.