Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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,

Similar News