PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa said it will not interfere in the case of medical negligence filed against doctors Dilip Amonkar and Shantaram Surme and refused to quash the order framing charges against the two doctors for causing the death of patient Ravina Rodrigues allegedly due to negligence.
Dr Amonkar a professor and head of department of Surgery at the Goa Medical College and Dr Shantaram Surme the family physician of the deceased had both approached the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge at Margao framing charges under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death due to negligence) in a bid to avoid a trial.
On July 1, 2010, Ravina Rodrigues was admitted at Pai Hospital, Vasco-da-Gama, with a complaint of severe abdominal pain. Dr S R Pai, Director and Chairman of Pai Hospital, who is also a renowned surgeon, requested Dr Amonkar to perform an emergency surgical operation on Ravina, as he was to leave for New Delhi for some urgent work.
On July 3, Dr Amonkar went to Pai hospital in the early hours of July 3 and found Ravina suffering from acute appendicitis. He performed a surgical operation and removed the appendix.
Ravina was discharged from Pai Hospital on July 7 but since she suffered continuous pain, she was readmitted to Pai Hospital on July 9. She was apparently treated by Dr Shantaram Surme and by Dr Pai. When Dr Pai called Dr Amonkar, he suggested that the patient be immediately shifted to GMC. On July 10 Ravina was shifted to GMC at 7.30 pm where she was reoperated on July 11 but on July 15 she developed complications in the Hospital and passed away on July 29.
After the government inquiry the case was registered as a crime, with all three doctors being named as accused in the chargesheet.
Dr Amonkar, in his arguments to quash the charges said that it being an emergency case of surgery he visited Pai Hospital only on humanitarian grounds operated and conducted appendectomy under final anesthesia and that there is not a single statement indicating negligence.
Dr Surme argued that he is a family physician, not surgeon, of the complainant for 15 years and hence he could not have operated the deceased and therefore there is no direct nexus between the death of the deceased and
his acts. The Bombay High Court at Goa said that there was no ground to interfere in the framing of charges as this could not be a ‘mini trial.'
"If the [Sessions] Court comes to a conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. Probative values of material on record cannot be gone into nor it can be said to be a mini trial," the HC ruled.
"The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and it cannot be exercised to substitute the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on question of facts, unless findings are shown to be perverse or untenable," the court said. "Interference may be justified when the decision is grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law and the material on record is not considered," the court said.
"It would be hazardous to act on the discrepancies unless they are so fatal or glaring to affect the credibility of the prosecution case without affording reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegations," the court said dismissing the petitions.
The doctors will now have to face trial.
The Bombay High Court at Goa said it will not interfere in the case of medical negligence filed against doctors Dilip Amonkar and Shantaram Surme and refused to quash the order framing charges against the two doctors for causing the death of patient Ravina Rodrigues allegedly due to negligence.
Dr Amonkar a professor and head of department of Surgery at the Goa Medical College and Dr Shantaram Surme the family physician of the deceased had both approached the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge at Margao framing charges under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death due to negligence) in a bid to avoid a trial.
On July 1, 2010, Ravina Rodrigues was admitted at Pai Hospital, Vasco-da-Gama, with a complaint of severe abdominal pain. Dr S R Pai, Director and Chairman of Pai Hospital, who is also a renowned surgeon, requested Dr Amonkar to perform an emergency surgical operation on Ravina, as he was to leave for New Delhi for some urgent work.
On July 3, Dr Amonkar went to Pai hospital in the early hours of July 3 and found Ravina suffering from acute appendicitis. He performed a surgical operation and removed the appendix.
Ravina was discharged from Pai Hospital on July 7 but since she suffered continuous pain, she was readmitted to Pai Hospital on July 9. She was apparently treated by Dr Shantaram Surme and by Dr Pai. When Dr Pai called Dr Amonkar, he suggested that the patient be immediately shifted to GMC. On July 10 Ravina was shifted to GMC at 7.30 pm where she was reoperated on July 11 but on July 15 she developed complications in the Hospital and passed away on July 29.
After the government inquiry the case was registered as a crime, with all three doctors being named as accused in the chargesheet.
Dr Amonkar, in his arguments to quash the charges said that it being an emergency case of surgery he visited Pai Hospital only on humanitarian grounds operated and conducted appendectomy under final anesthesia and that there is not a single statement indicating negligence.
Dr Surme argued that he is a family physician, not surgeon, of the complainant for 15 years and hence he could not have operated the deceased and therefore there is no direct nexus between the death of the deceased and
his acts. The Bombay High Court at Goa said that there was no ground to interfere in the framing of charges as this could not be a ‘mini trial.'
"If the [Sessions] Court comes to a conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. Probative values of material on record cannot be gone into nor it can be said to be a mini trial," the HC ruled.
"The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and it cannot be exercised to substitute the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on question of facts, unless findings are shown to be perverse or untenable," the court said. "Interference may be justified when the decision is grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law and the material on record is not considered," the court said.
"It would be hazardous to act on the discrepancies unless they are so fatal or glaring to affect the credibility of the prosecution case without affording reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegations," the court said dismissing the petitions.
The doctors will now have to face trial.
