RAMESH CARDIAC MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL (P) LTD Vs. MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ramesh Cardiac Multi Speciality Hospital (P) Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.129 of 2019 dated 19.04.2019 of Nagarampalem Police Station. The petitioners/A.1 is a Hospital and A.2 is a Doctor, who worked at the said hospital. The first respondent/complainant underwent an eye surgery in the said hospital on 23.11.2016. Claiming that the Doctor did not perform the surgery as required that the first petitioner gave an advertisement stating that they are a "Multi Specialty Hospital"; that after the operation the complainant realized that the Doctors are not qualified and the hospital does not have a specialist to treat the complainant etc., the present complaint is filed under sections 416, 417, 418 and 419 r/w 34 IPC against the Hospital and the Doctor. A private complaint was filed and the same was referred for investigation and the FIR was registered.
(2.)This Court has heard Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and first respondent/complainant in person, who has filed a written counter opposing the application.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant underwent a surgery in the A.1/hospital and he was under the care of A.2 and during the surgery known as PHACO. An IOL (Intra Ocular Lens) was inserted into the eye of the complainant. Latter, after some time, it was noticed that IOL was dislocated. Alleging that the Doctors were negligent, the complainant filed a consumer case bearing CC.No.38 of 2017. Learned counsel submits that the consumer case was decided on merits and it was allowed in part. Questioning the same, an appeal is filed, which is also pending as per the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that this is essentially a civil dispute which is being converted into a criminal case to coerce the Doctors into accepting the claim. Learned counsel submits that the operation was performed in November, 2016 and the private complaint was filed one year later in November, 2017 and after the consumer case was filed. Counsel also submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. He also states that none of the sections quoted are applicable at all. Last, but not the least, he submits that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 6 SCC 1 a private complaint cannot be entertained unless there is a prima facie medical opinion produced by the complainant. He therefore, submits that the lower Court committed an error in taking the complaint on record and also taking cognizance of the offence.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.