MAMTA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been preferred under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. to seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 237, dtd. 28/5/2022, under Ss. 338, 406, 420 IPC and Sec. 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, after the said relief has been declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat to the petitioner vide order dtd. 1/6/2022 (Annnexure P-13).

(2.) The story set forth by the prosecution, as could be made out from the perusal of FIR in question is that father of the complainant was suffering from gangrene on the thumb and three fingers of left foot, who was a diabetic and heart patient as well. During a visit on 27/1/2022 to the house of complainant's sister at Panipat, a clinic of petitioner-accused came to the notice in the market on 28/1/2022. An advise of the petitioner accused was sought, who had mentioned on the Board outside of her clinic as Dr. Mamta Kapoor. The petitioner-accused gave all assurance of curing the diseases and asked to get the father of complainant admitted in her clinic. The father of the complainant was treated from 28/1/2022 till 6/2/2022, the date on which he was discharged. At the time of discharge from the clinic, the petitioner-accused did not give any document despite asking time and again but promised to give the complete summary of treatment and discharge, later on. Even thereafter, the petitioner-accused made home visits till 13/2/2022 at the house of complainant's sister in Virat Nagar, Panipat and the petitioner-accused charged a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 for the complete treatment. Thereafter, the complainant along-with his father left for their house in Amritsar. However, the father of the complainant started having acute pain in the left foot and got him examined in Gupta Hospital, Siddharth Nursing Home, Amritsar. It was diagnosed at that stage that gangrene has infected the entire left leg, which has to be amputated failing which it will endanger his life. The reasons for such severe infection was the wrong and negligent medical treatment given by the petitioner-accused. At this stage inquiries were made by the complainant, which revealed that various other persons have also been put at risk by the petitioner-accused, one Rehlan had suddenly died and another patient namely Mrs. Darshan Rani was noticed to be very serious. The petitioner-accused is already facing complaints in that regard, who is practising as a 'doctor' without having any licence as such and is being allowed to play with the life of innocent people.

(3.) Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-accused is having due qualification to provide Electro Homeopathy/Acupressure treatment and drew attention of this Court to the Result-cum-Detailed Mark Certificate (Annexure P-2) issued by the Council of Electro-Homeopathy System of Medicine (Punjab), apart from a certificate of M.D.Acu. issued by Acupressure Research, Training and Treatment Institute, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Annexure P-6). It is further submitted that the petitioner-accused has completed Complimentary Medicine (Medicine Alternative) through correspondence course from an institute registered by the Punjab Govt. under S.R. Act and Govt. of India under T.M. Act, 1999 (Annexure P-7) along-with a Diploma in Community Medical Services and Essential Drugs (CC) granted by the Para Medical Council (Punjab) dtd. 28/7/2011.