RAJENDRA PRASAD HANSARIA Vs. PRAVEEN JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is one of the accused, in Complaint Case No. 1998C/2004, has sought for quashing of the complaint, in question, as well as the order, dated 03-08-2004, whereby cognizance of offence, under Section 304-A IPC, has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, who has also directed issuance of process, amongst others, against the present petitioner, who is a Gynaecologist and Obstetrician and presently working as Chief Medical Superintendent of Marwari Maternity Hospital, Guwahati, which is being run by a charitable trust, namely, Marwari Databya Aushadhalaya, and which is one of the accused in the complaint, in question.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B Hansaria, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner, and Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the complainant-opposite party.

(3.) The case of the complainant may, in brief, be set out as under : (i) The accused No. 1, namely, Sri Om Prakash Choudhury is the Secretary of the Marwari Maternity Hospital and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Dr. RP Hansaria (i.e., the petitioner herein), Dr. Dinesh Agarwal and Dr. KK Goswami (since deceased) respectively are doctors practising in the said hospital and also in other parts of the city of Guwahati. (ii) The complainant admitted his wife, Smti. Namita Jain, on 31- 03-2004, at about 9.30 am, as a delivery case. At the time of her admission, Namita Jain was examined by the present petitioner, who found that the patient's all the parameters, such as, blood test, x-ray, ECG, etc, were as per requirements and she was quite normal and fit. On 01-04-2004, at about 9.00 am, Dr. RP Hansaria (i.e., the petitioner herein) came, suddenly, to the complainant and told him that the patient was required to undergo some operation and surgery and that the complainant was required to give his consent thereto by putting his signatures on requisite papers. The complainant accordingly signed the necessary consent papers on 01-04-2004, whereupon Dr. RP Hansaria conducted necessary operation on 01-04-2004 itself and the complainant's wife delivered a male child on that very day at about 11.45 am and, thereafter, she was shifted from Operation Theater (OT) to the Observation Room. (iii) Subsequent to the surgery, the patient was, however, lying unconscious. This apart, when the patient was brought out from the Operation Theater, the complainant noticed that there was continuous bleeding at the point of saline's needle and his wife's bed was full of blood. Seeing this abnormal condition, the complainant raised the matter before the attending doctor, namely, Dr. RP Hansaria, who failed to take the matter seriously and did not take remedial medical steps and, as a result thereof, her condition went on deteriorating from bad to worse. The patient was, therefore, again, shifted to Operation Theater. Thereafter, at about 7.30 pm, the patient was brought back to the Observation Room with general oxygen, whereupon the complainant asked the doctors, namely, accused Nos. 2 and 3 (i.e., Dr. RP Hansaria and Dr. Dinesh Agarwal respectively), about the condition of the patient. Both the said doctors replied by saying that due to excess dose of anesthesia, some problems had arisen, but there was no need to worry inasmuch as necessary treatment was in progress. On being so informed by the said two doctors, the complainant remained silent and waited for recovery of his patient; but he was quite upset with the condition of the patient, because the patient remained in unconscious state till 6.30 pm, though such a patient, under normal circumstances, ought to have regained sense within an hour of surgery from the influence of anesthesia. The complainant also observed that due to negligence, on the part of the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, his wife's condition had become serious and he (complainant) also found that there was no provision for Intensive Care Unit (ICU), in the said hospital, to provide better treatment to such type of serious patients. (iv) The complainant, therefore, decided and, consequently, tried to shift his patient to some other hospital; but the doctors, attending on his patient, including the present petitioner, did not allow him to take away the patient and to shift her to any other hospital. The attending doctor, namely, accused No. 2, Dr. RP Hansaria, again and again, tried to convince the attendants of the said patient, particularly, the complainant, that the patient was alright so far as gynaecological aspect was concerned, but she had been having problem, because of excess dose of anesthesia. (v) On 02-04-2004, at about 3.30 am, some attending doctor rang up the complainant to inform him that his patient's condition was very serious and that he should come, immediately, to the Observation Room. On receiving the phone call, the complainant and his brother, Satish Jain, came to the Observation Room and found that 2/3 doctors, along with some nurses, searching for some electrical wires in the Observation Room and 2/3 doctors were pumping the chest of the patient. From what the complainant observed, it was clear to him that due to non-availability of ICU and other facilities in the said hospital, the condition of the patient was very much serious. When the condition of the patient deteriorated further, then, the attending doctors/medical authorities concerned started taking steps to shift the patient to Guwahati Neurological Research Centre (GNRC) at about 5 am, but it took about 15 minutes to carry the patient from the Observation Room, situated on the 1st Floor of the said hospital, to the ambulance and in this 15 minutes of total process, the patient was not provided with oxygen and life saving support. (vi) The patient was, thus, shifted to GNRC and taken to the ICU there at about 5.30 am. The staff, on duty, put the patient on cardiac monitors and artificial ventilation; but after 6.15 am, the patient was declared dead. The complainant approached the GNRC authorities to issue requisite Death Certificate of his wife; but the GNRC refused to issue any such certificate, for, according to them, the death of the patient had occurred during the transit in the ambulance itself. (vii) In order to know the cause of untimely death of the complainant's wife, the complainant sent a letter, on 10-04-2004, to the Secretary, Marwari Maternity Hospital, requesting him to provide the complainant with all the documents pertaining to the treatment of his patient. The complainant repeated the request by another letters, dated 13-04-2004. Thereafter, in response to the complainant's letters, dated 10- 04-2004 and 13-04-2004, the General Secretary, Marwari Maternity Hospital, Sri OP Chaudhury (i.e., accused No. 1), sent one letter, dated 17- 04-2004, to the complainant along with some relevant papers relating to the complainant's wife and, at the same time, he also mentioned in the letter that the whole matter, pertaining to the death of Smti Namita Jain, was under a process of enquiry. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary of Marwari Maternity Hospital sent another letter, dated 30-04-2004, to the complainant along with an inquiry report as regard the circumstances leading to the death of the complainant's wife. The inquiry report is, however, contradictory in the sense that the said letter claims that the doctors themselves had decided to shift the patient to GNRC at about 5 am on 02-04-2004. By the letter of the authorities concerned, it was also admitted that on reaching GNRC, the staff, on duty, immediately, resorted to necessary treatment, but the patient was declared dead and, in the same report, the enquiring authority also admitted the fact that the patient went into deep coma during transfer and as per report from GNRC, the death had occurred, in the ambulance, during transmit period from Marwari Maternity Hospital to GNRC.