Bombay High Court Upholds  Conviction of a septuagenarian doctor For Patient's Death 40 Yrs Ago

The Bombay High Court recently upheld the conviction of a septuagenarian doctor for his negligence by not taking immediate steps to deal with a complication during a surgery, leading to the death of a patient in 1984. The court  increased the fine imposed on operating surgen from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 5 lakh. Out of this sum, Rs. 4.9 lakh is directed to be paid to the family of the victim. 

However,the court considered the state of health of the  septuagenarian doctor and it was mentioned in the order that

"Giving the status of his health and life and it would be highly unreasonable and unjust, if a septuagenarian with this medical condition, is sent to jail for undergoing sentence, as at present he is fighting cancer and a man who once a time was acclaimed surgeon and a Registrar, lecturer and Reader in general surgery in KEM Hospital and whose name feature in the list of honorary surgeons at RM Cooper Hospital, do not defnitely deserve incarceration at the twilight years of his life and particularly when he himself is suffering from precarious ailments."

In the year 1984 the patient, a 30-year-old businessman, sought treatment for hyperhidrosis, or excessive sweating of his palms from the accused doctor. A surgery (cervical sympathectomy) was performed on him, and complications arose during the procedure.It was alleged that a nerve was damaged during surgery leading to a critical spasm of the subclavian  artery. After 12 hours, when efforts to restore blood supply failed patient was transferred to the KEM Hospital for further treatment due to the unavailability of modern equipment at the treating facility. Despite efforts to stabilize his condition, he did not show signs of improvement and passed away on February 20, 1984.

Also Read-

Contempt notice to Patanjali Ayurved in case related to misleading advertisement of their products

His father filed a complaint under Section 304-A of the IPC against operating surgeon. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of surgeon, asserting that the surgery was unnecessary and that the patient had not been adequately informed of its risks.

On 18/10/1994, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, pronounced upon the complaint filed under Section 304-A of IPC, by father of the deceased patient accusing the operating surgeon of rash and negligent act resulting in death of his son on 20/02/1984

The accused, Doctor gave his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he stated that Patient was admitted in his nursing home on 17/02/1984, as he was scheduled to be operated for
hyperhidrosis or excessive sweating of the palms. He commenced the operation at about 9.30 to 10.00 a.m., expecting the sectioning of the sympathetic nerve within an hour. Following the sectioning of the nerve, it was noticed by him that the subclavian artery went into spasm and to relieve the spasm, he took steps as provided in the text book, but when the spasm could not be relieved, he sent his assistant to call one senior Dr. Khandeparkar from KEM Hospital, who came at about 1.00 p.m. and tried to relieve the spasm. Dr. Khandeparker was of the view that after fnishing the surgery the patient should be kept under watch for a couple of hours and he agreed to come back again at 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. to
review.

The doctor further stated that he accompanied the patient to KEM Hospital and was aware that two operations were performed and as the spasm could not be relieved by conservative measures, a bye-pass graft was performed in KEM Hospital, so as to unblock the blocked by-pass graft.

On conclusion of the trial and based on the evidence placed before him, the Magistrate, in the impugned Judgment, rendered a fnding that the accused/Dr.  has been culpably negligent and the rash and negligent act on his part, is manifest upon the sequence of events, leading to the death of a young and otherwise a healthy man, who but for the procedure undertaken by doctor, would be alive. The conclusion and inference was also drawn that the surgical process carried out by the accused doctor was not at all necessary. While imposing the sentence on recording the fnding of guilt under Section 304A, taking note of the immense services rendered by the accused, a medical professional and at the same time trying to balance the agony of the near relatives of the deceased because of the negligence and rashness attributed to him, a deterrent fne of Rs.5,000/- was imposed as a penalty and in default it was directed that he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 10 days. Out of the fne amount, Rs.4,500/- was directed to be allocated to the complainant, after appeal period was over.
Access the original court order here-

Bombay High Court Order