PARMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has assailed order dated 13.10.2015 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, accepting revision filed by revisionist-respondent no.2 Mukesh Kumar Gupta, thereby reversing order dated 14.7.2014 of the learned trial court, whereby he along with respondent nos. 3 to 9 was summoned under sections 304-A, 337, 420 and 468 read with section 34 IPC in a complaint case filed by the petitioner under sections 190 read with section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for commission of offences under sections 201/204/279/302/304- A/337/357/386/420/464/468/506/34 read with section 120-B IPC.

(2.) The brief facts according to the petitioner necessary for disposal of this petition are that during the intervening night of 24/25.01.2011, the petitioner got his wife, namely, Chandermukhi Verma, aged about 72 years admitted in the Medanta Hospital, Gurugram on account of her sudden acute abdominal pain with frequent bowel movement, nausea and vomiting, where she died in the evening of 28.01.2011 at 8.40 PM. Earlier to this, she was leading a healthy and active life except for age related minor diseases, like diabetes and hypertension etc. She was regularly checked up by Dr. R.R.Kasiwal, a known cardiologist on whose advice, she was got admitted there. However, after almost three hours of her admission at 3.14 A.M., no endeavor was made to diagnose and cure the excruciating pain suffered by the deceased in her abdomen, wasting precious time. Even after remaining in emergency ward, she was not treated on account of indifferent attitude shown by the doctors. It was only at 7.30 A.M on 25.01.2011, on direction of Dr. Samir Malhotra, a cardiologist, deceased was shifted to Cath Lab at 7.30 A.M and a temporary pacemaker was installed to her, which, in fact, was not required. Thereafter, for the whole day, since 9.00 A.M to 6.30 P.M., she was not once examined by a Gastroenterologist in the emergency ward, except for Dr.R.R.Kasliwal, a Nephrologist. It was only after making repeated requests that Dr.Manish Paliwal, Gastroenterologist, came to examine the deceased and raised doubt about the possible bowel Ischemic condition of the patient. He advised serum lipase and X-ray examination of abdomen of the deceased. However, in the evening, echo was performed to know about the condition of the deceased, which ought to have done before the pacemaker was inserted. It was, in fact, a gross negligence on the part of the doctor. Thus, the condition of the patient started deteriorating. She turned pale as she was highly anemic, but nothing was done except for making suppression, alteration and interpolations in the medical records, thereby amounting to forgery and destruction of evidence. It is further averred in the complaint that though the patient was suffering with the acute intestinal Ischemia or acute bowel Ischemia and she never complained of chest pain nor she sweated at the time of her admission, but the doctors could not be able to diagnose the disease, thereby making unreasonable delay. The disease, being serious and painful, if is not treated immediately, the blood supply in the intestine suddenly stops, which results in grave injury to the intestine. Therefore, it was the bounden duty of the doctors to start treatment under the guidance of a specialist, but with a view to enhance the medical bill of the hospital, which is being run under the guidance and control of Board of Directors and especially of respondent no.2 Dr. Naresh Trehan, who is a cardiologist of international repute, and is incharge of day-to-day affairs of the hospital, who had even met the petitioner and his family to have a discussion on the line of treatment. But shockingly, the hospital is being run as a business house rather than cooperating the ailing patient.

(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that a C.T.Angio or MRI Angio scan or an exploratory laparotomy (surgery of the abdomen) was required to be done to ascertain the cause of abdominal pain in order to save the life of the deceased, but no such step was taken, thereby respondent nos. 2 to 10 acted grossly, negligently and recklessly in treating the deceased in a right direction. The deceased was removed to heart command centre, rather examining her for her abdominal pain. One Dr. Fatima, who was from the team of Dr. Manish Paliwal, opined the need for CT Angio, but nothing was done. On 26.1.2011 Dr. T.P.Bohra, merely suggested the investigation by way of CT Angio abdomen and he noticed the onset of Metabolic Acidosis. It is averred that Dr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta forcibly intubated (putting on mechanical ventilator) the deceased against her will and no specific permission, in this regard, was sought from the petitioner or his family members. Dr. P.N. Gupta, a Nephrologist, turned down the opinion of conducting Angio/CT scan in consultation with Dr. Manish Paliwal. Dr. R.R.Kasiwal did not bother to visit the patient till 27.1.2011. It was only after the threat given by the petitioner that he would evict the deceased from the hospital, Dr. R.R Kasiwal visited the deceased and made the petitioner and his family members to sit in a room next to heart command centre, but did not meet them.