• Criminal medical negligence - I.P.C. 304 Part 11

Death of a 24 year old lactating lady on 14/12/2004. She was administered inj.Ampicillin by Dr.Girija(second accused) gynaecologist after faulty test dose at 11.A.M. Her provisional diagnosis was left renal colic(in the O.P. chart) for which no antibiotic is warranted. The duty doctor Dr.Ajit(first accused) came to the scene at 11.15.A.M. and recorded no B.P. and pulse. She was given steroids only and NOT adrenaline even though he notes C/O breathlessness which is the HALLMARK of Ampicillin allergy. He transfers the patient to I.C.U. and writes ? fits and inj.Diazepam was given. The diazepam stops her breathing and the third accused comes and intubates her. He leaves the hospital without writing a SINGLE word in the case sheet. Then I come to the picture at 11.35 A.M.  The duty M.O. Ajit tells me patient with fits came and was given Diazepam. He also writes a reference letter which is silent about injections Ampicillin and Diazepam. I got this letter only in 2010 while being presented in consumer forum. I feel this is the TRUMP CARD in this case which reveals the STATE OF MIND is that of concealment. I took the pt to a hospital where there was a ventilator and the cardiologist there tried his best without any benefit. Then the cardiologist who knows the husband of the deceased told me Ampicillin was given prior to Diazepam since he had the bill with him. The charge is under I.P.C. 304 Part 11 as per High Court order no:1903/14. I was made a court witness when I moved the H.C. to quash the charge since I was made fourth accused to prejudice the trial court.
The sessions court was going to start the trial on 17/11/2014. But the accused moved the H.C. with a transfer petition no:92/14 and this is still pending.
I like to know whether I.P.C. 299 (3) or I.P.C.300(4) IS RELEVANT IN THIS CASE.
The uniqueness of this case is that she was NOT suffering from any disease. This can be proved with documentary evidence from the case sheet. The provisional and final diagnoses of the second accused in the in patient chart is abdominal colic PROBABLY due to pelvic inflammatory disease. The word PROBABLY reveals her HESITANT and GUILTY state of mind. The second accused did NOT do per vaginal examination which is sheet anchor of the diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease.
I was the physician of that hospital at the relevant time.
Asked 1 year ago in Criminal Law from Trivandrum, Kerala
Religion: Hindu
What is the advice you are seeking here?

If it is with respect to the report which had been submitted subsequently then you are still at a safer place where you can show from all the judgement where it is recorded that before you came into picture, get condition had already been worsened.

You must present your case strongly basing on the evidence produced before district court etc
Shaveta Chaudhary (Sanghi)
Advocate, Chandigarh
821 Answers
60 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. The case is made out only under 304 II. 

2. You have stated that you have been made a court witness by the court even though you were made an accused in the case. What role has been assigned to you as a witness by the court? Has your statement been recorded?
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18158 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Yes, Section 300 (4) of I.P.C. is applicable in the instant matter,

2. Here, without any excuse a drug was administered kinowing very well about its ill effect on the patient, although they might not have any premeditated design to kill the patient.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12113 Answers
231 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Refer the Supreme Court Judgement in case of Dr.Anuradha Saha who died due to such ill treatment.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12113 Answers
231 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hence, it surely attracts Section 300(4) of I.P.C.as mentioned in my earlier post.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12113 Answers
231 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
The doctors who prescribed/administered Ampicillin and Diazepam can be charged with sec 300(4) of I.P.C.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12113 Answers
231 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. The case will surely climb up and reach the highest Court of india,

2. It will be a difficult case for the accused no 1 & 2 to escape the charge of murder,

3. Accused no. 3 will be charged for negligence of duty causing death to the patient.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12113 Answers
231 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Criminal Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14056 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18158 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12113 Answers
231 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5223 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3534 Answers
130 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
436 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2752 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1916 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1950 Answers
65 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0