VANEETA JHUNTHRA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 388 dated 6.6.99 has been registered under Sections 201, 337, 383, 420 and 34 IPC at Police Station City, Sirsa wherein the following allegations are found :

(2.) The complainant Geeta Rani and her husband-Gauri Shankar, who have got two children, did not want to have the third child. Therefore, they approached the petitioners - Mrs. Vaneeta Jhunthra and Dr. Satisb Jhunthra (who are wife and husband respectively) for the termination of the pregnancy of the complainant - Geeta Rani. Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra claimed herself to be an expert doctor in this matter, in the presence of her husband. On 12.2.99, the complainant and her husband went to the clinic of the petitioners and explained everthing, including the age of the pregnancy. Mrs. Vaneeta Jhunthra examined the complainant and discussed the matter with her husband - Satish Jhunthra, Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra in the presence of her husband, told that she was very well qualified, and experienced in terminating such pregnancy. Both the petitioners advised the complainant to undergo surgical operation, and it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 5000/- should be paid as settled by Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra. The amount was paid to Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra in the presence of her husband-Satish Jhunthra. On 12.2.99. Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra in the presence and with the assistance of her husband - Dr. Satish Jhunthra conducted the operation on the complainant for terminating the pregnancy, and after the operation, the complainant 's husband was permitted to take the complainant to his house, after prescribing some medicines. In the same evening, the complainant started having pain in her womb and vagina, bleeding through vagina, and her abdomen became distended. On 13.2.99, the complainant and her husband again visited the clinic of the petitioners and reported. Again Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra, with the help of her husband, put some surgical instruments through her vagina, and thereafter told that everything has been set right. However, the pain did not stop inspite of the medicines given. Therefore, the complainant and her husband came to the clinic of the petitioners the third time on 17.2.99 to get relief from pain and also to stop bleeding. At the instance of Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra, the ultrasound was done, but the reports of the same were concealed and destroyed by the petitioners. The complainant was having pain and bleeding from the vagina and her abdomen was distended. The petitioners again took the complainant to the Labour Room and conducted operation through the vagina for the third time. During this operation, the petitioners showed utmost negligence and recklessness. They acted rashly and negligently in performing the operation for the third time. During this operation, the colon which carries the stool outside the body, was cut off due to the negligence and incompetence of the petitioners. The complainant was kept in the clinic till 24.2.99 by the petitioners. Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra ordered the husband of the complainant to deposit Rs. 15000/-, if he wanted to save the complainant, which the complainant's husband did under pressure. Thus, the petitioners extorted Rs. 15,000/- from him. The cutting of the colon was not disclosed to the complainant and her husband. Since there was no improvement, the husband of the complainant took her to his house. As a result of the cutting of the colon, the stool started passing through the vagina continuously. The petitioners again checked the complainant on 27.2.99 and some medicines were inserted by them in the vagina. Until 5.3.99, the complainant remained under constant pain with fever. On 5.3.99, the husband of the complainant took her to the Nursing Home of Dr. K.K. Gupta, where she was checked by Dr. Priti Gupta, who told about the cutting of the colon, due to which the stool passed through the vagina. She, further, told that there was high degree of infection inside the womb on account of the cut in the colon, and that some pieces of dead flesh remained inside the womb during the operation for the termination of the pregnancy. After this, the complainant and her husband came to the petitioners on 5.3.99, and was referred to Dr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma of Delhi. But, on the reference of Dr. Priti Gupta, she was admitted in the Medical College, Rohtak on 6.3.99. It was found that uterus of the complainant had been badly affected, and the same was, therefore, removed. The complainant was further operated upon, and a new copper pipe was fitted for the purpose of passing of the stool. Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra was not competent and qualified to do the termination of the pregnancy.

(3.) The petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Sirsa for bail in anticipation of arrest, but the same was declined by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for the same relief.