Appeals against conviction for medical negligence under IPC Sections 304A and 201 after a patient died following laparoscopic sterilization. The High Court set aside the conviction, finding no evidence of gross or culpable negligence causing death, and acquitted all accused.
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944
CRA(V) NO. 589 OF 2015
AGAINST CP 97/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-III, PUNALUR
SC 391/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
KOLLAM
APPELLANT/8TH PROSECUTION WITNESS IN THE SESSIONS CASE
NO.391/2009:
PHILIPS THOMAS, S/O THOMAS, THADATHIVILA VEEDU, MANGAMANKALA, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PUNLAUR P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA 691305.
BY ADVS. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SMT.JANCY ALEX SRI.SHAFFIE THOMAS SRI.SANEESH KUNJUKUNJU
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED 1 TO 6 IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.391/2009:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 2 :-
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV.SRI.V.VINAY (AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL (V) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 02.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 3 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 1 OF 2014
AGAINST CP 97/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-III, PUNALUR
SC 391/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
KOLLAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3:
DR.VINU BLAKRISHNAN S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, ASWATHIYIL, POONTHIRODIL, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SMT.T.V.NEEMA,SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.A(V) NO.589/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 02.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 4 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 22 OF 2014
AGAINST CP 97/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-III, PUNALUR
SC 391/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
KOLLAM
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
DR. BALACHANDRAN AGED 62 YEARS S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, CHANDRA VILASOM, MADAPPALLY JUNCTION, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.V.NEEMA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.A(V) NO.589/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 02.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 5 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 23 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 391/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
DR. LAILA ASOKAN MEDICAL OFFICER, DEEN HOSPITAL, PUNALUR (JAYALEKSHMI ILLAM, HIGH SCHOOL WARD, VALACODU VILLAGE, PUNALUR.) BY ADVS. SRI.JAYANTH MUTHURAJ (SR.) SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.V.NEEMA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2023, ALONG WITH CRA(V).589/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 6 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 25 OF 2014
CP 97/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,
PUNALUR
SC 391/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
KOLLAM
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS. 4 TO 6:
NURSE, DEEN HOSPITAL, PUNALUR, RESIDING AT MUTHIRAKKALYIL VEEDU, PUNNALA MURI, PUNNALA VILLAGE, PUNALUR.
NURSING AID, DEEN HOSPITAL, PUNALUR, RESIDING AT SYAM NIVAS, KAKKODU, MAILAKKAL WARD, PUNALUR.
3 SUJATHA KUMARI NURSING AID, DEEN HOSPITAL, PUNALUR, RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VEEDU, ELIKKOODU, PLATHARA MURI, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN KEERTHIVAS GIRI
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.V.NEEMA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2023, ALONG WITH CRA(V).589/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2023
Though doctors’ aura of Godliness and holiness is a myth, they are volunteers who take the risk of dealing with the most intricate, delicate, and complex machine on earth - the human body. Any surgical procedure or medical intervention on this highly compound machine carries some inherent risk. There is always the chance that the treatment does not go as planned. When things go wrong, it is not always the fault of the doctor. A complication by itself does not constitute negligence. There is a big difference between an adverse or untoward event and negligence. However, there is a growing tendency to accuse the doctor of an adverse or untoward event. Nothing can be more professionally damaging and emotionally draining than being arrayed as an accused in any such action. A surgeon, under fear of facing criminal prosecution in the event of failure for whatever reason – whether due to his fault or not- cannot perform at his best. The Judicial Forums, in the process of fixing parameters of
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 8 :-
liability in the cases of medical negligence, must aim at striking a careful balance between the autonomy of a doctor to make judgments and the rights of a patient to be dealt with fairly, recognizing the complexity of the human body, inexactness of medical science, the inherent subjectivity of the process, and genuine scope for error of judgment. However, while dealing with criminal prosecution for medical negligence, the trial courts often ignore these principles. The subject matter of these appeals is one such typical case.
9.00 p.m. and then to Ananthapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, at 11.30 p.m. for expert management, her life could not be saved. She breathed her last on the next day at
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 9 :-
5.30 p.m. at Ananthapuri Hospital.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 10 :-
Punalur, against the accused, six in number, who are the doctors and nurses at Deen Hospital. The learned Magistrate, after complying with the statutory formalities, committed the case to the Additional Sessions Court V, Kollam (for short ‘the court below’) for trial and disposal.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 11 :-
finding that section 304 of IPC was not attracted, the victim preferred Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 12 :-
sections 304A and 201 r/w 34 of IPC had been established, and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned Amicus Curiae Sri. V. Vinay submitted that the court below grossly erred in not convicting the accused under section 304 of IPC. Both sides cited several decisions of the Apex Court in support of their submission, which will be referred to hereinafter in due course.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 13 :-
the deceased to the hospital for laparoscopic sterilization. As against accused No.3, there is no specific allegation of negligence. The accused No.4 is a qualified nurse, and the accused Nos. 5 and 6 are nursing assistants who only assisted the accused Nos.1 and 3. The prosecution has no case that they did something or failed to do something which ought to have caused the death of the deceased. The main allegation is against accused No.1. It is alleged that accused No.1 is not a qualified anesthesiologist, and he administered spinal anesthesia instead of general anesthesia. It is also alleged that he did not do a proper pre-operative evaluation of the patient. On evaluation of the evidence, the court below entered into the following findings:
and thus incompetent to administer anesthesia to the deceased.
(ii) The accused No.1 gave spinal anesthesia instead of general anesthesia, and the defective anesthesia administration ultimately resulted in the death of the patient.
(iii) There were lapses in the pre-operative and post-
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 14 :-
operative management of the patient.
(v) The surgery and nurses’ notes were not kept properly. Based on these findings, the Court below concluded that all the accused are liable for criminal negligence and causing the disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the offence.
10. In civil law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 15 :-
on an individual requiring that he/she exercises a reasonable standard of care while performing any act that could foreseeably harm others. In medical practice, the law has imposed a duty of care on the doctors for treating patients. The duties that a doctor owes to his patient are clear. They include a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, and a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties gives the patient a right of action for negligence.
11. The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil law and criminal law. Ordinary negligence is such failure to use care as would render a person civilly but not criminally liable. Criminal negligence is a greater failure and a greater falling below the standard of care and renders a man guilty criminally. The degree of negligence should be much higher for an act to amount to criminal negligence. Negligence not of such a high degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. The factor of grossness or degree does assume significance while drawing a distinction between negligence actionable in tort and negligence punishable
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 16 :-
as a crime.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 17 :-
[(2009) 6 SCC 1] and Kusum Sharma and Others v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Others (AIR 2010 SC 1050).
Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra (1968 Mh. LJ 423), it was held that while negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 18 :-
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do; criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. In Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2004) 6 SCC 422], the Apex Court held that the degree of negligence required should be gross or reckless. A mere lack of necessary care, attention, or skill was considered insufficient to hold one criminally liable for negligence. It was observed that mere inadvertence or want of a certain degree of care might create civil liability but will not be sufficient to attract criminal liability. The soundness of this view of the Apex Court was subsequently doubted, considering that word “gross” is absent in section 304A IPC and that different standards cannot be applied to actions of the negligence of doctors and others. Consequently, the matter was placed for reconsideration before a Bench of
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 19 :-
higher strength. Three-judge Bench (Bench strength in Dr. Suresh Gupta was two) in Jacob Mathew (supra) on a reconsideration endorsed the approach of the high degree of negligence being the prerequisite for fastening criminal liability as adopted in Dr. Suresh Gupta (supra). It was held that “In order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence, it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely imminent.” It was observed that the subject of negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 20 :-
incident be termed negligence, also an error of judgment is not negligence per se. To convict a medical professional for criminal negligence, the prosecution must prove culpable and gross negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. It must also be shown that the medical professional did or failed to do something which, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no ordinary skilled medical professional would have done or failed to do.
PW 9 and Exts. P4, P6 and P19 found that accused No.1 was not qualified or competent to give anesthesia, and he wrongly gave spinal anesthesia instead of general anesthesia, which led to complications and the death of the patient. The learned Senior Counsel for the accused No.1, Sri. S.Sreekumar, submitted that the Expert Panel constituted as per the direction of the Apex Court opined that the accused No.1 was competent to give anesthesia and, as such, the finding of the court below that he was not a qualified anesthetist and not competent to administer anesthesia is wrong. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the complication developed, which ultimately resulted in the death of
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 21 :-
the patient, was a result of the defective anesthesia administration. The Counsel also submitted that the finding of the court below that accused No.1 gave spinal anesthesia instead of general anesthesia is against the evidence on record. Per contra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Smt. T.V. Neema as well as the learned Amicus Curiae Sri. V.Vinay relying on the observations in Jacob Mathew (supra), vehemently argued that any task which is required to be performed with a special skill by a medical professional would generally be undertaken to be performed only if he/she possesses the requisite qualification and skill for performing that task and a medical professional can be held liable for criminal negligence if he/she was not possessed of the requisite skill which he/she professed to have possessed. According to them, an Anesthesiologist who has a postgraduation or Diploma in Anesthesiology alone is qualified to administer anesthesia and since accused No.1 did not possess either of these qualifications, he was incompetent to administer anesthesia to the deceased. They further submitted that the evidence on record establishes that the wrong administration of anesthesia by an incompetent person resulted in the death of the
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 22 :-
patient.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 23 :-
case list would show that he had administered anesthesia to several patients.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 24 :-
administering anesthesia and the period of training prescribed by the department of Health Service is four months either in Medical College or in major hospitals. After scrutinising various rules and regulations relating to the prescribed qualification for an anesthetist, it was reported that a doctor who has passed MBBS and has training in anesthesiology is qualified to give anesthesia to a patient. The Apex Body, on perusal of various records, concluded that the accused No.1, after his MBBS, had undergone one-year Senior House Surgency in anesthesia at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, and he had the requisite qualification for giving anesthesia to the patient.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 25 :-
practice of anesthesia. Accordingly, it was resolved that the doctors with MBBS registration are qualified to give anesthesia. Thus, in fact, as per the said resolution, the Council of Modern Medicine was recognizing the qualification of doctors with MBBS registration to administer anesthesia irrespective of their date of degree or certificate of registration.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 26 :-
Panel, has admitted that an MBBS graduate who has undergone four months of training in anesthesiology is competent to administer anesthesia. She has further admitted that the accused No.1 had high experience. DW4, the convener of the Apex Body, has also admitted that the accused No.1 was qualified to administer anesthesia. I have already found that the documents produced by the defence would show that accused No.1 had undergone resident senior house urgency in anesthesiology at Medical College, Trivandrum, for one year. For these reasons, the finding of the court below that the accused No.1 was not qualified and competent to administer anesthesia cannot be sustained.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 27 :-
general, was the proximate cause of the death of the patient.
was an injection mark reaching the spinal canal. Its dura was punctured. Based on this, PW9 opined that it might have occurred when spinal anesthesia was administered. On the other hand, in the case sheet of the Deen Hospital (Ext. P12 series), it was recorded that what was administered was general anesthesia. It has come out in evidence that to ascertain whether spinal anesthesia was administered, the best and sure test is to collect and analyse Cerebro Spinal Fluid (CSF). DW3, an expert in forensic science, and PW 14, a consultant anesthesiologist at Poyanil Hospital, gave evidence that the CSF test is the confirmatory test to find out the administration of spinal anesthesia. CSF is a clear fluid that surrounds and protects the brain and spinal cord. CSF analysis is a group of tests that measures chemicals in the cerebrospinal fluid. PW9 admitted that CSF was not collected for chemical examination. According to her, it was blood-stained, so it was not attempted. On the other hand, DW3 categorically deposed that CSF will be available in several areas, and even if it is blood-stained, it can be sent for chemical
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 28 :-
analysis. He gave such an opinion referring to the authoritative textbook on Forensic Science. PW14 also deposed that CSF
would be available at 2 to 3 places, ventricle, lumbar etc., even after two days of death. Apart from the testimony of PW9, there is absolutely nothing on record to suggest that what was administered by accused No.1 was spinal anesthesia and not general anesthesia. Even PW9 only deposed that accused No. 1 might have administered spinal anesthesia. She was not sure whether spinal anesthesia was administered. Without adopting the sure test for spinal anesthesia, the mere injunction mark is insufficient to conclude that spinal anesthesia was administered.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 29 :-
practitioner cannot be held criminally liable simply because things went wrong through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of procedure/treatment in preference of another. A medical practitioner can only be held liable for criminal negligence if he fails to adopt a usual and normal course of treatment and the course adopted by him is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary care (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol.30, para 35 as quoted in para 22 of Jacob Mathew). Thus, accused No.1 cannot be found at fault in administering spinal anesthesia even if the prosecution’s version that spinal anesthesia was administered is believed to be true.
24. To impose criminal liability under section 304A of IPC, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused. That act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. The liability under this section is created on the assumption of foreseeability of consequences that could result from a wrongful act. Thus, for fastening the liability of criminal negligence on the accused, the administration of
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 30 :-
anesthesia, be it general or spinal, must be the direct or proximate cause of death.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 31 :-
prosecution that the administration of spinal anesthesia caused ARDS/Hypoxia, which in turn resulted in the death of the patient.
Even though the Expert Panel found that there was no preoperative evaluation, there is absolutely no evidence on record, or even the prosecution does not have a case that it was on account of the said lack of proper pre-operative evaluation that the complication developed to the patient and the death has
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 32 :-
occurred. Admittedly, the Deen Hospital did not have a ventilator facility. The patient was shifted to Poyanil Hospital only after 3½ hours. The prosecution alleged that this was a crucial time and the patient could have been referred to a higher centre having better facilities much before. But, the evidence on record would show that immediately after the complication developed, the doctors at Deen Hospital did their best to save the patient. It has come out in evidence that two anesthetists and a cardiologist from other hospitals came to Deen Hospital and examined the patient. PW14 deposed that when he visited Deen Hospital at 6.30 p.m., he found that shifting the patient to a higher centre was dangerous. In the absence of any material on record to suggest that the alleged lapses in the pre-operative or postoperative management of the patient at the Deen Hospital were the direct or proximate cause of death, findings in Exts.P15 and D9 assume no significance.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 33 :-
sterilization can only be done by a doctor who is trained in laparoscopy. DW5 has categorically deposed that accused No.3 had undergone training in laparoscopic surgery. The court below found that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 did not undergo any training for laparoscopy. Ext.P17 only mandates that a doctor who performs the surgery should be trained in laparoscopy. Ext.D11 contained the list of the accredited institutions performing sterilization surgeries in the private sector at Kollam District. Deen Hospital finds a place in the said list. Of course, it is of the year 2007. According to DW5, the directory was published for the first time in Kollam district in 2007. Ext.D12 would show that to a question given by the proprietor of the Deen hospital, the Public Information Officer of DMO Kollam, under the Right to Information Act answered that the date of commencement of the directory was not available. PW6 also admitted that mandatory accreditation for sterilization was not available at the DMO of Kollam till 2007. She has also admitted that prior to 2006, no such manual was published.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 34 :-
or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held negligent per se for the offence under section 304A of IPC unless the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt the culpable and gross negligent act on his part. That act must be the proximate or direct cause of death of the patient. Such a shred of evidence is lacking in this case. None of the witnesses and documents discussed in the above paragraphs points the gross or culpable negligence on the part of any of the accused.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 35 :-
prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no convincing evidence to connect the accused with the alleged incident. At any rate, the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Hence, the conviction and sentence under sections 304A and 201 r/w section 34 of IPC cannot be sustained.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 36 :-
likely to cause death but with the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death. A person responsible for a reckless or rash negligent act that causes death which he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with the culpability of homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC. It is settled that the knowledge contemplated under sections 299 and 304 of IPC is of a higher degree. Knowledge of the mere possibility that the act may cause death is not the knowledge envisaged. Viewed from the nature of the evidence adduced, it can safely be concluded that the accused did not have the degree of knowledge to the extent that their act may likely cause the death of the patient. That apart, I have already found that the prosecution failed to prove gross or culpable negligence on the part of the accused. In these circumstances, section 304 of IPC is also not attracted.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
-: 37 :-
that the complaint filed by the victim against the accused before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission claiming compensation was allowed and a sum of 7,00,000/- was awarded as compensation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that, as against the said judgment, appeal is now pending before the National Commission. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar that the awarded compensation of 7,00,000/- was already deposited before the National Commission. The counsel further submitted that the appellants have no objection in the victim withdrawing the said amount, and the appellants do not want to proceed with the appeal. The said submission is recorded. That apart, the acquittal of the accused under section 304A of IPC will not have any bearing on the appeal pending before the National Commission since there exists a clear distinction between negligence incurring civil liability and criminal liability.
Crl.Appeal Nos. 1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 25/2014 and Crl.Appeal (V) No.589/2015
Appeal Nos.1/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, and 25/2014 are allowed. Crl. Appeal (V) No.589/2015 is dismissed.
I place on record the appreciation for the painstaking effort
taken and able assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri.V.Vinay.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the accused committed culpable or gross negligence under Section 304A IPC in the death of a patient after laparoscopic sterilization surgery?
Whether the accused caused disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC by failing to maintain proper medical records?
Whether the accused could be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and AnotherRelied on¶3
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another (AIR 2005 SC 3180) · Who else cites this
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management CommitteeReferred¶12
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee {[1957] 1 W.L.R. 582}
State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram and OthersAffirmed¶12
State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram and Others [(2005) 7 SCC 1] · Who else cites this
Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. DhanankaAffirmed¶12
Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka [(2009) 6 SCC 1] · Who else cites this
Kusum Sharma and Others v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and OthersAffirmed¶12
Kusum Sharma and Others v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Others (AIR 2010 SC 1050) · Who else cites this
John Oni Akerele v. The KingReferred¶13
John Oni Akerele v. The King (AIR 1943 PC 72) · Who else cites this
Syad Akbar v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶13
Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980 KHC 527)
Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶13
Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra (1968 Mh. LJ 423) · Who else cites this
Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of DelhiReferred¶13
Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2004) 6 SCC 422] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Philips Thomas
State of Kerala
Dr. Balachandran
Dr. Laila Ashokan
Dr. Vinu Balakrishnan
Anilakumari
Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
