She Was Only Present During Operation: Patna High Court Quashes 22-Yr-Old Case Against Female Doctor Accused Of Removing Patient’s Kidney

The Patna High Court quashed a 22-year-old case against a female doctor who was accused of removing kidney of a patient.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition preferred by the accused doctor under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking to quash an Order of the Trial Court which dismissed her discharge application.

A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed, “Considering the aforesaid factual and legal submissions and by taking note of facts, as admittedly the petitioner is the wife of Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, who conducted the operation upon O.P. No.2 on 13.09.2000, where petitioner was only said to be present and further by taking note of the report of P.G.I., Chandigarh, which is a document of unimpeachable character, therefore, taking note of Devendra Nath Padhi case (supra), Bhajan Lal Case (supra) and other legal reports as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge X, Patna in Sessions Trial No.440 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No.1750(c) of 2003 along with all its consequential proceedings qua petitioner is fit to be set aside/quashed to secure the ends of justice.”

Advocate Ajay Kumar Thakur appeared for the Petitioner while APP Navin Kumar Pandey and Senior Advocate Sanjay Singh appeared for the Opposite Parties.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, the Opposite Party (Complainant) lodged a Complaint stating that he was working as a mail man in Railway Mail Services at Patna Railway Station. In June 2000, he was suffering from acute abdominal pain associated with the passing of red-white substances along with urine. He was facing difficulty in passing urine and hence, he got himself examined in the dispensary of Central Government Health Scheme at Kankarbagh. He was advised by the doctor posted there for Ultrasonography of the whole abdomen. As per the sonographic report, he was found suffering from mild Hepatomegaly and also with mild Benign. His right kidney was found intact and no abnormality around the kidney was found. Further, on the advice of the doctor at Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), other pathological examinations were done, where all the reports were found within normal limit. Thereafter, someone at CGHS recommended the name of the accused no. 1 Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, where the Complainant got himself examined.

He was suggested few other pathological examination and medicine was also prescribed to him. The accused no.1 found him suffering from ‘Chyluria’. He confirmed his diagnosis by performing Cystoscopy and subsequently, on his advice, he was operated for his disease. The accused no. 1 was accompanied by his team consisting of his wife i.e., the Petitioner, two Assistants, and one anaesthetist. Post operation, the Complainant’s complication increased as he started having severe pain in the right side of the abdomen. Even after all examinations, the complications kept increasing. After remaining in the hospital for a couple of days, he was discharged but his complications were not resolved. He then got himself examined by a physician who suggested USG examination. The report showed that the right kidney “not seen”. He suspected that his right kidney was removed without his consent. Resultantly, the case went to the Trial Court, which dismissed the Petitioner’s discharge application against which she approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “This Court is aware about the legal position that defence version cannot be looked into at this stage but as report of the PGI, Chandigarh discussed in para-17 of the judgment is a document of such unimpeachable character, to which, this Court has no hesitation to accept at this stage in view of Devendra Nath Padhi case (supra), where all previous reports and medical history of complainant/O.P. No.2 were taken into consideration.”

The Court said that the version of allegations as set out through Complaint Petition, nowhere suggests prima facie any cognizable offences as alleged for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) qua Petitioner.

“Interestingly, no cognizance was taken for criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120-B of the IPC. Hence, this case also falls under the golden guideline nos. (1), (3) and (7) as settled through Bhajan Lal case (supra)”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused.

Cause Title- Dr. Mamta Sinha v. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Case Number: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27653 of 2024)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Ajay Kumar Thakur, Vaishnavi Singh, and Ritwik Thakur.

Opposite Parties: APP Navin Kumar Pandey, Senior Advocate Sanjay Singh, and Advocate Vinod Kumar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment