-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
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,
