Protection of Medical Professionals Cannot Extend to Those Running Ill-Equipped Nursing Homes Merely for Profit – Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Case Against Gynaecologist

“Delay in Surgery Despite Consent Amounts to Prima Facie Medical Negligence” – Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Case Against Gynaecologist. In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC filed by a gynaecologist seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of alleged medical negligence leading to the death of a foetus during delivery. Justice Prashant Kumar observed that “consent for surgery was taken at 12 noon, but operation was performed only by 5:30 PM. Delay is unexplained and fatal – a prima facie case of criminal negligence is clearly made out.” The Court refused to interfere with the summoning order and directed that the matter proceed to trial.

The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) dated 29.07.2007, lodged by the brother-in-law of the patient, who was admitted for delivery at Savitri Nursing Home, Deoria, owned by the applicant Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai. The woman, in advanced labour, was admitted on 28.07.2007 at 10:30 AM. It was alleged that the doctor sought consent for a Caesarean section at 12 noon the following day, but the operation was not performed until 5:30 PM, by which time the foetus had died.

The complaint further stated that the doctor’s staff beat up the patient's relatives when they objected, demanded an additional ₹8,700 after the operation, and refused to issue a discharge slip. A post-mortem later revealed that the foetus died due to “prolonged labour”—a fact crucial to the present case.

Dr. Rai argued that he was fully qualified, the Medical Board absolved him of negligence, and the complaint was motivated and malicious, aimed at extracting money.

However, the Court held otherwise. Referring to the contradictory O.T. Notes, the post-mortem report, and the timeline of events, Justice Prashant Kumar held:

“Where the consent was admittedly given at 12 PM and the operation took place only after 5 PM, and the anaesthetist was called only at 3:30 PM, the delay stands unexplained. The foetal death due to prolonged labour speaks for itself.”

The Court strongly questioned the credibility of the Medical Board’s opinion, noting that crucial evidence such as the post-mortem report and contradictory OT notes were not even placed before it.

Justice Kumar observed:
“Opinion of the Medical Board cannot be relied upon when key documents like post-mortem report and O.T. records were kept away. There is no sanctity in such a one-sided enquiry where only the accused doctor was heard.”

Rejecting the argument that the doctor’s qualification should shield him from prosecution, the Court observed:

“The case is not about qualification, but about the failure to provide timely care. This is a case where surgery was delayed for over five hours without medical justification. Such conduct goes beyond civil negligence—it borders on criminality.”

The Court also took note of the broader implications: “Private nursing homes have become ATM machines where patients are admitted without infrastructure and doctors are called only in emergencies. Such practice is nothing short of gambling with human life.”

Relying on precedents like Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital, and Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Court reiterated the legal position that while doctors deserve protection, such protection is not absolute.

Quoting Jacob Mathew, the judgment noted:
“To prosecute a medical professional, it must be shown that the doctor did something or failed to do something which no prudent doctor would have done in the given circumstances.”

Addressing the issue of invoking Section 482 CrPC, the Court held:
“This Court cannot undertake a mini-trial. The existence of disputed facts and a prima facie case militates against quashing at this stage. Truth must emerge through evidence at trial.”

Dismissing the application, the Court held that there was ample prima facie material to proceed against the applicant:

“This is a case where death occurred due to unjustified delay in surgery after consent was given. There are contradictory documents, missing records, and clear negligence. It is for the trial court to decide the culpability after full evidence.”

In closing, the Court issued a word of caution: “No doubt doctors need protection from frivolous prosecution, but not when they run hospitals without basic infrastructure and delay critical care despite consent. This Court cannot be a refuge for such negligent practices.”

The application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed, but the Court clarified that its observations are prima facie in nature and shall not influence the trial, which must proceed on its own merits.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2025