In Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, AIR 2004 SC 4091,
.
the appellant was a doctor accused under Section 304A, IPC for causing death of his patient. The operation performed by him was for removing his nasal deformity. The Magistrate who charged the appellant stated in his judgment that the appellant while conducting the operation for removal of the nasal deformity gave incision in a wrong part and due to that blood seeped into the respiratory pa...ssage and because of that the patient collapsed and died. The High Court upheld the order of the Magistrate observing that adequate care was not taken to prevent seepage of blood resulting in asphyxia. The Supreme Court held that from the medical opinions adduced by the prosecution the cause of death was stated to be ‘not introducing a cuffed endotracheal tube of proper size as to prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the respiratory passage.’ The Supreme Court held that this act attributed to the doctor, even if accepted to be true, can be described as a negligent act as there was a lack of care and precaution. For this act of negligence he was held liable in a civil case but it cannot be described to be so reckless or grossly negligent as to make him liable in a criminal case. For conviction in a criminal case the negligence and rashness should be of such a high degree which can be described as totally apathetic towards the patient.
.
the appellant was a doctor accused under Section 304A, IPC for causing death of his patient. The operation performed by him was for removing his nasal deformity. The Magistrate who charged the appellant stated in his judgment that the appellant while conducting the operation for removal of the nasal deformity gave incision in a wrong part and due to that blood seeped into the respiratory pa...ssage and because of that the patient collapsed and died. The High Court upheld the order of the Magistrate observing that adequate care was not taken to prevent seepage of blood resulting in asphyxia. The Supreme Court held that from the medical opinions adduced by the prosecution the cause of death was stated to be ‘not introducing a cuffed endotracheal tube of proper size as to prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the respiratory passage.’ The Supreme Court held that this act attributed to the doctor, even if accepted to be true, can be described as a negligent act as there was a lack of care and precaution. For this act of negligence he was held liable in a civil case but it cannot be described to be so reckless or grossly negligent as to make him liable in a criminal case. For conviction in a criminal case the negligence and rashness should be of such a high degree which can be described as totally apathetic towards the patient.
.
(மூக்கில் உள்ள குறையை நீக்க அறுவை சிகிச்சை செய்யும்போது நோயாளி இறந்துவிடுகின்றார். மருத்துவர் மீது 304அ பிரிவில் போலிஸ் கேஸ் போடுகின்றார்கள். அறுவை சிகிச்சை பண்ணும்போது இரத்தம் மூச்சுக்குழலுக்குள் சென்று விடுவதால் நோயாளி இறந்துவிட்டதாக குற்றம் சாட்டம் படுகின்றது. முறையான cuffed endotracheal tube of proper size as to prevent aspiration பொருத்தாததே தவறுக்கு காரணம் என்று தீர்மானித்து, இது சிவில் வழக்காகத்தான் வரும் கிரிமினல் வழக்காக வராது என தீர்மானிக்கப்பட்டது.
.
Ratio decidendi: While administering General anaesthesia, the correct sized cuffed endotracheal tube must be used.
(மூக்கில் உள்ள குறையை நீக்க அறுவை சிகிச்சை செய்யும்போது நோயாளி இறந்துவிடுகின்றார். மருத்துவர் மீது 304அ பிரிவில் போலிஸ் கேஸ் போடுகின்றார்கள். அறுவை சிகிச்சை பண்ணும்போது இரத்தம் மூச்சுக்குழலுக்குள் சென்று விடுவதால் நோயாளி இறந்துவிட்டதாக குற்றம் சாட்டம் படுகின்றது. முறையான cuffed endotracheal tube of proper size as to prevent aspiration பொருத்தாததே தவறுக்கு காரணம் என்று தீர்மானித்து, இது சிவில் வழக்காகத்தான் வரும் கிரிமினல் வழக்காக வராது என தீர்மானிக்கப்பட்டது.
.
Ratio decidendi: While administering General anaesthesia, the correct sized cuffed endotracheal tube must be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment