Bombay High Court Allows Discharge of Doctors in Egg Donation Death Case Due to Lack of Medical Negligence and Parity with Co-Accused. Visiting doctors cannot be held responsible for admission of underaged patient or for medical negligence when medical committee opines no negligence and co-accused with similar role is discharged.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 383
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves three criminal revision applications filed by Dr. Kirtikumar Sankleshwar Trivedi, Dr. Gauri Prakash Sultane, and Dr. Heta Deepak Kenia against an order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting their discharge applications in Sessions Case No. 579 of 2011. The background pertains to the death of a minor girl who was allegedly subjected to egg donation procedures at Rotunda hospital on three occasions: 22.10.2009, 15.02.2010, and 07.08.2010. The victim, a minor working in a scrap godown, went missing on 07.08.2010 and was brought back on 09.08.2010, after which she complained of abdominal pain and eventually died on 10.08.2010. Postmortem revealed multiple injuries and injection marks. Investigation disclosed that the victim had undergone egg removal procedures, and the applicants, who were visiting doctors (gynaecologist and anaesthesiologist) at Rotunda hospital, were implicated. The applicants sought discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., arguing that there was no evidence linking them to the last procedure on 07.08.2010, and that the medical committee opined no medical negligence. The prosecution opposed, citing the seriousness of the crime and evidence of the victim's age below 18 years. The court analyzed the record and found that the applicants were not owners of the hospital, there was documentary evidence showing the victim's age as 20 years at admission, and no allegation that the applicants prepared such documents. The medical committee from Grant Medical College opined that it was not a case of medical negligence. Additionally, Dr. Kadam, a co-accused gynaecologist involved in the first procedure, had been discharged by the Trial Court, and that order was unchallenged. The court held that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants, and on parity with Dr. Kadam, they were entitled to discharge. The impugned order was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to pass a formal order discharging the applicants.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. - Sufficient Ground for Proceeding - The court must consider the record and documents; if no sufficient ground exists, the accused shall be discharged. In this case, the applicants were visiting doctors, not owners of the hospital, and there was no evidence that they prepared documents showing the victim's age as major. The medical committee opined no medical negligence. Held that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants (Paras 7-9).

B) Medical Negligence - Egg Donation Procedure - Cause of Death - The committee of doctors from Grant Medical College opined that it was not a case of medical negligence and no evidence of anaesthetic complications or trauma to internal organs causing death. The victim was discharged and followed up as per routine. Held that the applicants cannot be held responsible for the admission of an underaged patient or for medical negligence resulting in death (Para 8).

C) Criminal Procedure - Parity in Discharge - Co-accused Discharged - Dr. Kadam, a gynaecologist who performed a procedure on 22.10.2009, was discharged by the Trial Court, and that order attained finality. The role of the present applicants was indistinguishable from Dr. Kadam's. Held that the applicants are entitled to discharge on parity (Para 9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicants, being visiting doctors (gynaecologist and anaesthesiologist) at Rotunda hospital, are entitled to be discharged under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for lack of sufficient ground to proceed against them in connection with the death of a minor girl who underwent egg donation procedures.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Criminal Revision Applications are allowed. The impugned order dated 25.05.2023 is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to pass a formal order discharging the applicants from Sessions Case No. 579 of 2011.

Law Points

  • Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
  • Sufficient ground for proceeding
  • Medical negligence
  • Parity in criminal proceedings
  • Role of visiting doctors
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 98

Criminal Revision Application No. 410 of 2023 with Criminal Revision Application No. 337 of 2023 and Criminal Revision Application No. 338 of 2023

2024-08-09

R. M. Joshi

2024:BHC-AS:35465

Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar a/w. Mr. Nihar Ghag, Mr. Darshan Zogade and Mr. Archit Sakhalkar for the Applicant; Mr. Akash Kavade for Applicant in REVN/337/2023 and for REVN/338/2023; Smt. Poonam Bhosale, APP for Respondent-State

Dr. Kirtikumar Sankleshwar Trivedi, Dr. Mrs. Gauri Prakash Sultane Nee Gupta, Dr. Mrs. Heta Deepak Kenia Nee Chabra

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision applications challenging rejection of discharge applications under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in a sessions case involving death of a minor girl after egg donation procedures.

Remedy Sought

The applicants sought discharge from Sessions Case No. 579 of 2011.

Filing Reason

The applicants, being visiting doctors at Rotunda hospital, were implicated in the death of a minor girl who underwent egg donation procedures. They contended there was no evidence of their involvement in the last procedure and no medical negligence.

Previous Decisions

The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the discharge applications (Exhibit-84, Exhibit-83, Exhibit-62) on 25.05.2023.

Issues

Whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Whether the applicants are entitled to discharge on parity with co-accused Dr. Kadam who was discharged.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants submitted that there is no evidence of their involvement in the crime; they were not concerned with the procedure on 07.08.2010; the medical committee opined no medical negligence; they are visiting doctors not responsible for admission; documentary evidence showed victim's age as 20 years; and Dr. Kadam was discharged on similar facts. Prosecution submitted that there is evidence of the procedure being done by applicants; the victim was below 18 years; and at this stage it cannot be said there are no sufficient grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 227 Cr.P.C., if upon consideration of the record and documents there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the accused shall be discharged. In this case, the applicants were visiting doctors, not owners of the hospital; there was no evidence that they prepared documents showing the victim's age as major; the medical committee opined no medical negligence; and the applicants were not concerned with the last procedure on 07.08.2010. Additionally, on parity with co-accused Dr. Kadam who was discharged, the applicants are entitled to discharge.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. requires the Court to consider the record of the case and documents submitted therewith. If the Court finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the accused shall be discharged by recording reasons for doing so. Committee of the doctors of Grant Medical College, Mumbai has given candid opinion about this being not a case of medical negligence. Considering the role of Dr. Kadam as well as present applicants, there is absolutely no distinction therein, in performance of procedure in question. The Applicants, therefore are entitled for discharge even on parity.

Procedural History

The case was registered as C.R. No. 329 of 2010 at Sakinaka Police Station. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and Sessions Case No. 579 of 2011 was initiated. The applicants filed discharge applications (Exhibit-84, Exhibit-83, Exhibit-62) which were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 25.05.2023. The applicants then filed the present criminal revision applications under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 227, Section 397
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Probationer's Appeal in Civil Service Termination Case, Holding Discharge During Probation Not Removal or Dismissal Under Article 311(2). Rule 55-B of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules Was Substantially...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Under Section 302 IPC Due to Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence. Circumstantial Evidence Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt as Witness Testimony Was Inconsistent and Extra-Judicial ...