LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-76

R.K. GOEL Vs. DHARAM SINGH

Decided On November 01, 2006
R.K. Goel Appellant
V/S
DHARAM SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed by Dharam Singh respondent the petitioner on the allegations that his great grandson Gursharan Singh aged 14/15 months, became ill on 30.4.2002 and on the following day he was taken to the hospital of the petitioner where the petitioner told the complainant that the child was suffering from Pneumonia but he was given routine medicines instead of being given proper treatment with the sole motive of prolonging the treatment and getting money in the process. The patient was taken to the doctor on 5.5.2002 and again on 30.5.2002 but he was sent back by the doctor after giving him certain medicines. On 11.6.2002, the position remained the same as even this time the patient was sent back after being prescribed some medicines. On the following day i.e. on 12.6.2002, the patient was admitted by the petitioner in his hospital but the doctor did not properly attend to him and showed negligence and dereliction in duty. On the following day i.e. 13.6.2002 at about 8.00 a.m., the doctor was called from his house to the hospital, who after finding the condition of the patient to be serious, advised certain tests and x-ray besides blood examination. The reports were received at 9.00 a.m. but the doctor did not tell the complainant that the condition of the patient was serious. So much so that the doctor told the complainant to leave the hospital and take the patient to some other hospital. Immediately, the complainant along with Jaswinder Singh, father of the patient, took him to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, where he was examined by Doctor Karnail Singh, a Child Specialist. Said Doctor Karnail Singh treated the patient and told the complainant that the doctor, who had initially treated him had shown much negligence. The petitioner was admitted in the said hospital. However, at about 4/5 p.m. on the same day, Dr. Karnail Singh referred the patient to Ludhiana Hospital but he died on the way to the said place. An application was, thereafter, submitted by the complainant to Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, who called for a report from Dr. Karnail Singh. In his report Dr. Karnail Singh wrote that if the tests had been got conducted at proper time and correct dose of medicine given, the child could have been saved. In spite of the said report, the police did not take any action and left with no other opinion, the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 304-A IPC against the petitioner on 10.12.2002.

(2.) PRELIMINARY evidence was recorded by way of the testimonies of Dr. Karnail Singh as PW-1 and complainant Dharam Singh as PW-2. However, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot did not find any convincing evidence on the record to show as to how the treatment given by the accused led to the death of the child. Accordingly, vide order dated 1.12.2004, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The said order was challenged by complainant Dharam Singh by filing a revision which was accepted by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 3.8.2005. Order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 1.12.2004, while dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was set aside and the case remanded back to the said Court to proceed with the case according to law. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner.

(3.) IT has been further submitted that the petitioner was neither reckless nor negligent in providing treatment to Gursharan Singh, great grandson of the complainant. He had been giving the proper and adequate treatment by prescribing various medicines so that the child could recover from the ailment he was suffering. Even Dr. Karnail Singh, whom he claim to have given a report against him because of professional jealousy, did not state anywhere that the treatment and the medicines being given to the patient were not for the ailment from which the patient was suffering. It was only stated that the medicines and other treatment were changed thrice from June 11 to June 12, 2002 and that the tests were prescribed only at a very late stage and by that time the condition of the patient had deteriorated considerably. Hence, no case was made out for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC and the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, while accepting the revision of the complainant/respondent, deserves to be set aside and that of the trial Court to be restored.