1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 161 of 2004 [Ku. Deepali Ravindra Desai Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.S. Kilor, Adv., [appointed] for the petitioner. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. N.B. Mohta, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Mr. V.G. Bhamburkar, Adv., for respondent no.7. Mr. R.J. Mirza, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 8 and 12. Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, Adv., for Respondent No.9. Mr. D.M. Upadhye, Adv., for respondent no.11 [absent]. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 4th February, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A.S. Kilor for the petitioner, other learned Advocates for the respective respondents and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. B.H. Dangre for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Perused the Affidavit- in-Reply and annexures thereto. 2. It is seen that the tenor of complaints originally made was of negligence on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 4 in taking action, and failure to take proper care and administer proper treatment and care by respondent nos. 5 to 12, and all of them being liable in Criminal Law due to their acts and omissions. 3. In the course of time, the case has 2 taken the turn where the petitioner is now advancing the grievance on two footings, namely:- [a] Criminal liability on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 4 in their acts and omissions, and [b] criminal liability on the part of respondent nos. 5 to 12 in taking proper care and their casual approach in treating the deceased- patient medically. 4. The Enquiry Reports of different Committees were ordered. 5. First report is placed on record along with a forwarding letter sent by Medical Superintendent, Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, dated 2nd September, 2008, which is Annexure-4 [page 88 onwards] to affidavit of the State. 6. Second report is of the enquiry conducted by Mother's Death Investigation Committee and Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Amravati, which is forwarded to police under the letter dated 5/6th January, 2009. 7. These reports are focusing at the cause of death and the treatment administered in the Duffrin Hospital at Amravati. These reports in unambiguous terms rule out the possibility of negligence on the part of Operating Surgeon – Dr. R.N. Shelke, in particular his having administered anaesthesia, himself not being an Anaesthetist. 3 8. It is also noticed that no forensic assistance was possible, in the background that Post-mortem Examination was declined/refused. 9. On the basis of papers relating to treatment available with the Committees, they have further opined that on what reveals therefrom, even the Post-mortem Examination may not have led to any other opinion than the one arrived at by them. 10. The petition consists of manifold prayers. 11. In so far as the criminal liability towards erroneous medical treatment is concerned, the enquiry was conducted, and reports are now in the hands of police, and law shall take its own course and any directions are not seen to be necessary. 12. In so far as the directions which the petitioner is seeking against the Medical Council of India for taking action against respondent nos. 1 to 12 is concerned, it may not be a subject-matter of a Criminal Writ Petition. Moreover, if a complaint is already made, or will be made in future, the respondent no.13 would certainly act according to law. 13. In so far as Prayer Clause (iv) is concerned, in absence of a positive conclusion that there is an act of negligence on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 12, a direction ordering payment of compensation would not be permissible. A conclusion in favour of damages could be reached in a suit for damages or any 4 other action in law, if the negligence on the part of doctors is proved. If such a remedy is available in law to the petitioner, the same would not get impeded due to rejection of this petition. 14. In the light of what we have discussed, no interference is called for. Petition is disposed of. Judge Judge |Hedau| 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2008 [State of Mah. Vs. P.P. Apotikar & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 3rd February, 2009. Appeal is dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau|