SAROJ SETHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed with a prayer for quashing FIR No. 177 dated 21.7.2002 under Sections 304-A, 201, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sirhind (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, including the final report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE FIR was lodged at the instance of Naresh Kumar (respondent No. 2) with the allegations that his wife-Veena Rani had complaint of tonsils on account of which she had fever from time to time. Veena Rani was medically checked up at Government Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, where Dr. Saroj Sethi (petitioner No. 1) advised surgery. Necessary medical check up was conducted on the person of Veena Rani and she was, accordingly, admitted on 17.7.2002. The surgery was scheduled for 18.7.2002, as per the instructions of the doctor. At about 8.30 a.m., Veena Rani was taken to the Operation Theater. At about 11.45 a.m., a Class-IV official came and stated that the surgery had been conducted successfully. Soon thereafter, however, the complainant found an Ambulance parked outside the Emergency and the driver informed the complainant that the patient had become serious and was being sent to the P.G.I., Chandigarh. The Ambulance had been called by Dr. Saroj Sethi (petitioner No. 1). Veena Rani was, accordingly, shifted in the Ambulance. On the way, artificial respiration was given by the accompanying doctors. On reaching P.G.I., Chandigarh, the doctor posted in the Emergency Ward informed that Veena Rani had expired.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another, 2005(3) RCR(Crl.) 836 : 2005(2) Apex Criminal 649 : AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3180, has summed up the cases of the present nature and has held that negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with difference. Reliance has been placed on sub-paras (2), (5) and (7) of para 49, which read as under :-