Medical Negligence — Criminal liability — Standard
Criminal prosecution of a doctor requires proof that the act was such that no reasonable medical professional would have done; mere adoption of one accepted procedure over another does not amount to criminal negligence. (Para 16)
Medical Procedure — Alternative treatment — Validity
Where multiple accepted medical options exist, the doctor is entitled to choose the appropriate procedure based on clinical judgment. (Para 17)
Consent — Scope — Alternative procedures
Consent covering alternative procedures, where indicated in the consent form, is sufficient unless manipulation is proved. (Paras 17, 19)
Forgery — Consent form — Proof
Allegation of interpolation or forgery in medical records must be supported by cogent evidence such as forensic proof; mere allegation is insufficient. (Paras 19, 20)
Medical Board opinion — Evidentiary value
Independent expert opinion confirming appropriateness of procedure strongly negates criminal liability. (Paras 6, 17, 20)
Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing — Scope
Courts may examine factual aspects in quashing jurisdiction where continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process. (Para 18)
Abuse of process — Criminal proceedings
Where no prima facie case exists and materials support the accused, continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process of court. (Para 20)
RATIO DECIDENDI
When a qualified medical professional performs a recognized and medically appropriate procedure, supported by expert medical opinion, and there is no credible evidence of lack of consent or forgery, continuation of criminal prosecution amounts to abuse of process and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
FACTS OF THE CASE (Para-wise, Court Style)
- The de facto complainant’s minor son (aged about 1½ years) was admitted for Orchidopexy (placement of undescended testicle). (Para 3)
- It was alleged that:
- No consent was given for Orchidectomy (removal of testicle),
- Yet, the doctor performed Orchidectomy, and
- The consent form was allegedly interpolated to include the said procedure. (Para 3)
- FIR was registered under multiple IPC provisions including forgery, negligence and conspiracy. (Para 4)
- After investigation, charge-sheet was filed alleging:
- Rash and negligent act,
- Manipulation of consent form,
- Forgery of medical records. (Para 8)
- A Medical Board was constituted, which opined:
- Orchidectomy was a medically appropriate procedure,
- It is a recognized alternative in such cases,
- Consent should ideally be obtained. (Paras 6–7)
- The Director of Medical Services further opined:
- Consent form existed,
- Procedure was ethically and medically justified. (Para 7)
- High Court refused to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 10)
- Appeal was filed before Supreme Court.
- supreme court allowed the appeal.
