Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Alleged Medical Negligence in Hair Transplant Resulted in Death – Refused to Quash FIR – Madras HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment handed down by THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM, the Madras High Court dismissed a Quashing  petition involving alleged medical negligence in a hair transplant procedure. The case revolved around the unfortunate death of a patient, Santhosh Kumar, following a hair transplantation performed by Dr. Vinith, the petitioner, at ARHT Global Clinic in Chennai.

The court observed, “This is not a case where the death is the direct result of the treatment given by the petitioner,” emphasizing that the death must be proximately linked to the treatment to warrant legal action. The complaint had been filed after a significant delay, leading the court to consider it an afterthought and ill-motivated.

Furthermore, the court cited the need for gross negligence to invoke Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with causing death by negligence. The judgment highlighted that the prosecution had not attributed mens rea (criminal intent) to the accused, Dr. Vinith.

The court referred to several legal precedents, including Crl.A.No.770 of 2009 Anjana Agnihotri & Anr. Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr. And Martin F.D’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, to support its decision.

Mr. V.Sairam, advocate for the petitioner, argued that the case lacked prima facie evidence to support the charges under Section 304(ii) IPC. However, the court determined that the issue of whether the medical center was fit for hair transplantation procedures and whether Dr. Vinith was qualified for such procedures should be decided during the trial.

The judgment serves as a reminder that the courts must carefully consider the proximity of medical treatment to any adverse outcomes and the presence of gross negligence before initiating criminal proceedings in cases of medical negligence.

Date of Decision: 21.09.2023

Dr.Vinith  vs .State Rep.by the Inspector of Police,

Latest Legal News