The Patna High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust following a disputed medical opinion.

It was observed that professional medical advice rendered in good faith, even if alleged to be erroneous, cannot attract criminal liability under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the absence of mens rea or dishonest intent at the very inception of the treatment.

The Bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra held, "In the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the allegations levelled against the petitioner, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The dispute essentially arises from an alleged medical opinion rendered by the petitioner in the course of her professional duties, without any prima facie material to indicate dishonest intention or criminal breach of trust. Thus, the present case squarely falls within the categories illustratively enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), warranting interference by this Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law."

Advocate Saket Tiwary appeared for the Petitioner, while APP Pawan Kumar Chaurasiya appeared for the State.

Brief Facts

The complainant, an advocate by profession, visited the petitioner doctor’s clinic complaining of pregnancy-related complications. Upon examining an ultrasound report brought by the complainant, the petitioner advised medical termination of pregnancy for a fee. Although the complainant deposited the fee, she opted not to undergo the procedure on her family's advice. The petitioner subsequently prescribed certain medicines, which the complainant consumed, alleging it led to the deterioration of her health. However, upon consulting another doctor, the complainant was informed that the foetus was healthy, and she later delivered a healthy child.

Alleging that the petitioner fraudulently rendered false medical advice and retained her fee, the complainant instituted a complaint case. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The petitioner’s revision petition before the learned Revisional Court was dismissed, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the proceedings.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner submitted that the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted at face value, did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was argued that there was no entrustment of property to attract criminal breach of trust, nor was there any dishonest inducement or false representation from the inception of the transaction to constitute cheating.

The petitioner, being a qualified medical practitioner, merely rendered a professional opinion based on an ultrasound report provided by the complainant. At best, the allegations disclosed an error of medical judgment, which did not constitute a criminal offence.

It was further highlighted that no independent medical opinion was produced to demonstrate negligence, no contemporaneous proof of fee payment existed, and the prior legal notice issued by the complainant made no mention of any fee paid.

The State submitted that the complainant had alleged the giving of wrong medical advice and the refusal to refund the fee taken.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to be exercised sparingly, but must be invoked where the allegations fail to disclose a criminal offence or where the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Court noted that the petitioner had rendered her medical opinion based on an ultrasound report provided by the complainant herself, and there was no material on record to demonstrate any fraudulent or dishonest intent existing from the very inception of the medical consultation.

It observed, "It further transpires from the materials available on record that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are conspicuously absent. There is no material to indicate any entrustment of property so as to attract the offence under Section 406 of the IPC. Likewise, the complaint does not disclose that the petitioner made any false representation or practised deception with a dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction so as to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC...Furthermore, no independent medical opinion or other material has been brought on record to prima facie indicate that the medical advice rendered by the petitioner was knowingly false or actuated by any dishonest motive."

Reiterating guidelines on Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court observed that mens rea—specifically dishonest intention at the inception—is the sine qua non for cheating, which was conspicuously absent in the present case.

The Court observed that there was no proof of entrustment of property, no independent medical evidence showing the advice was knowingly false or malicious, and the legal notice sent prior to the complaint omitted any mention of the alleged money paid.

Relying on settled precedents, the Court held that the dispute essentially pertained to a professional medical opinion rendered during duty without any criminal intent.

Consequently, continuing the prosecution constituted an abuse of the process of law, justifying the quashing of the cognizance orders and the criminal proceedings.

Cause Title: Dr. Renu Rana v. State of Bihar and Anr. [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43305 of 2016]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Saket Tiwary

State: APP Pawan Kumar Chaurasiya

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: