KAMAL JEET SINGH Vs. PREM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing RBT No.348 dated 26.07.2007 (P-10), titled as 'Prem Pal Versus Dr. Kamaljit Singh' along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 05.06.2012 (P-16), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar (for short 'JMIC'), whereby petitioner has been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Further challenge is to the order dated 06.07.2013 (P-17), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which, the revision petition against the above said summoning order has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that wife of the respondent/complainant, namely, Mrs. Veena (hereinafter referred as 'patient'), aged 45 years, was admitted in Saini Multispeciality Hospital, Model Town, G.T. Road, Amritsar (hereinafter referred as 'Hospital') on 05.04.2007 at about 11:10 AM due to some pain in abdomen. After her examination, it transpired that she was having a stone (calculus) of 16 mm in her left ureter of kidney and consequently, operated by the petitioner on 07.04.2007. Further alleged that as per the findings in the Operation Notes, stone was not coming out, therefore, it was pushed time and again, which led to rupture of ureter having made punctures and contrast inserted to outline Pelvicalyceal System (PCS). Also alleged that again a fresh puncture was made, due to which, a gush of pus came out which led to collection of blood to the extent of one litre in the abdomen. Further alleged that petitioner, who operated the patient, should have adopted another method to remove the stone instead of pushing the same repeatedly while using ureteroscopy, which shows the negligence on his part and the same is clear from the Post Mortem Report (PMR) as well. In other words, the allegations are that instead of using the ureteroscopy by pushing the stone, an open surgical method ought to have been adopted for removal of the stone to avoid wounds and internal damage to the kidney, resulting into accumulation of pus and blood.

(3.) Complaint reveals that a report dated 29.05.2007 was submitted by Dr. Surinder Paul, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Government Medical College, Amritsar to the effect that due to stone in ureter, size of left kidney of patient was enlarged to 15 x 9 x 5 cm., which led to blockage of urine from kidney, leading to hydronephrotic changes. The above fact is further sought to be corroborated by Histopathological Report to substantiate the carelessness and negligence on the part of petitioner resulting into uncontrollable infection, leading to the death on 14.04.2007.