Allowed

Sudhakar Eshavrao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Sept 2013APPLN/875/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench quashed FIR and criminal proceedings against a husband and wife medical practitioners accused of negligence following a patient’s death post-cesarean delivery. Expert committee reports indicated no negligence, leading to the dismissal of the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The impugned prosecution is quashed and set aside; criminal applications are allowed.

Sudhakar Eshavrao Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 CRI.APPLN.NO.875, 876 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.875 of 2013

¶4

Dr. Sudhakar Keshavrao Mundhe,
Age 36 years Occu: Medical Officer,
r/o Sai Residency,
18 Manjeet Nagar,
Aurangabad.

¶5

...APPLICANT

¶6

versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Sub Inspector, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad.

¶8

2.Vijay Tarachand Gorme,
Age 30 years, Occ. private service,
r/o. Rohidaspura, House No.4-16-73,
Aurangabad.

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

...

¶11

Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Adv., h/f Mr. Vaibhav R.Patil
(Raverkar), Adv., for applicant.
Mr. K.G.Patil, Adv., for respondent State.
Mr. A.K.Bhosale, Adv., for respondent no.2.

¶12

...

¶13

WITH

¶14

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.876 of 2013

¶15

Dr.Nilima Sudhakar Mundhe,
Age: 36 years Occu: Medical Officer,
r/o Sai Residency,
18, Manjeet Nagar,
Aurangabad.

¶16

...APPLICANT
VERSUS

¶17

2 CRI.APPLN.NO.875, 876 of 2013

¶18

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Sub Inspector, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad.

¶19

2. Vijay Tarachand Gorme, Age 30 years, Occ. private service, r/o. Rohidaspura, House No.4-16-73, Aurangabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

...

¶22

Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Adv., h/f Mr. Vaibhav R.Patil
(Raverkar), Adv., for applicant.
Mr. K.G.Patil, Adv., for respondent State.
Mr. A.K.Bhosale, Adv., for respondent no.2.

¶23

...

¶24

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL AND

¶25

A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ. Date:SEPTEMBER 25th, 2013

¶26

...

¶27

P.C.:-

¶28

1. Heard.

¶29

2.By these petitions, the couple, Dr.Sudhakar
and Dr. Nilima, have questioned prosecution vide FIR
No.136/2012, registered with Jawahar Nagar, Police
Station, Aurangabad, which culminated into Summary
Criminal Case No.12/2013, for offence under Section
304-A read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file
of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Aurangabad.

¶30

3.Mr. A.K.Bhosale appears for respondent no.2,
husband of the deceased. He has filed reply through
Vijay Tarachand Gorme in which, in paragraph no.5 he
says that allegations made against the Gynecologist /
petitioners were due to misunderstanding. He has

¶31

3 CRI.APPLN.NO.875, 876 of 2013

¶32

realized that there was no negligence on the part of
the petitioners while treating his wife Vaishali. He
has no grievance against the petitioners in respect of
death of Smt. Vaishali. He categorically says that he
does not wish to prosecute FIR No.136/2012 registered
at Jawahar Nagar Police Station, at Aurangabad.

¶33

The applicant Dr. Sudhakar is a paediatrician
havingqualificationasM.B.B.S.,D.C.H.
(Paediatrician) and he was running a private hospital
styled as Mundhe Hospital at Aurangabad.

¶34

The petitioner in Application No.876/2013
Dr.Nilima, who is Gynaecologist with qualifications
M.B.B.S., D.G.O. (Gynecologist). They are in practice
from 2006.

¶35

4.Dr. Nilima attended the patient Vaishali who
had developed nine months pregnancy with labour pain.
Necessary medical treatment and medicines were given
to the patient. On 30.10.2011 Dr.Nilima had informed
to the patient and family members that, as a first
measure, it would be appropriate to wait for normal
delivery, and only if it is so required, the delivery
would be undertaken by adopting cesarean method. The
available facilities were indicated to the family
members of Smt. Vaishali. The patient was operated
successfully by Cesarean method and delivered a
healthy male infant. The patient remained indoor from
30th Oct., 2011 to 3rd Nov., 2011. The cesarean
wound was also checked, and it was in the process of
healing, as there was persistent dressing effected by
Dr.Nilima. Smt. Vaishali was discharged after five
days i.e. on 3.11.2011. After nine days of delivery,
on 7.11.2011, Smt. Vaishali visited hospital to remove

¶36

4 CRI.APPLN.NO.875, 876 of 2013

¶37

stitches and, at such time, Dr.Nilima noticed that
there was infection on cesarean area. Consequently,
Smt. Vaishali was admitted for curing the infection.
A laproscopy surgeon was called to obtain expert
opinion regarding the patient. However, in order to
avoid any mishap, Smt. Vaishali was immediately
shifted, as a precautionary measure, to M.G.M.
Hospital, at Aurangabad.. At M.G.M.Hospital, two
surgeries were performed, and Smt. Vaishali was indoor
patient. Unfortunately, on 14.11.2011, Smt. Vaishali
breathed her last.

¶38

5.Police Officer recorded statements of family
members, and a Medical Committee was constituted to
inquire, whether there was any negligence on the part
of the petitioners. The Committee report revealed that
requisite precautions were adhered to, and carried at
the hospital of the petitioners but, at the end, it is
said that they were not in a position to comment
whether there was no negligence at all. On 26.8.2012,
FIR was lodged vide Crime No.136/2012 by Police Sub
Inspector.

¶39

5.We have perused the two expert committees
reports which analytically inform that there cannot be
a willful conduct on the part of the petitioners - not
to ensure for safety of the patient Smt. Vaishali.
The hospital had Autoclave Register, Fumigation and
Swab Register available. The petitioners were
competent to perform cesarean operation. Even if the
hospital was under renovation, as was alleged by
husband of Vaishali, however, the Committee opined
that there was nothing of this sort, and even if some

¶40

5 CRI.APPLN.NO.875, 876 of 2013

¶41

renovation was carried, it will not vitiate treatment
process to Smt. Vaishali.

¶42

6.Taking conspectus of above facts, and in
addition, affidavit in reply of husband Shri Vijay of
Smt. Vaishali, the prosecution against the applicants
calls for interference. There is no element of
negligence while treating said Vaishali. There was
no effort, attempt or volition on the part of the
applicants in causing grievous hurt to said Vaishali.
They did not act so negligently so as to endanger life
or safety of the patient Smt. Vaishali.

¶43

The impugned prosecution is quashed and set
aside.

¶44

Criminal Applications are allowed.

¶45

The applicants to deposit Rs.10,000/- ( Rs. ten
thousand), each, with High Court Legal Services Sub
Committee, at Aurangabad, upto 15th Oct., 2013.

¶46

agp/875-13crapl

Sudhakar Eshavrao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Eshavrao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Balwantrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vishwas Pralhad Tanpure and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Abhimanyu Rangnath Bodhwad Vs State of Mah and Anr.

Bhausaheb Dashrath Dole and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Nilima Sudhakar Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendrakumar Shivprasad Mundada Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another