The Bombay High Court recently remanded the case back to the trial court bench, ordering it to consider the evidence, including answers provided during cross-examination. This implies that the trial court will now have another opportunity to consider the case alleging medical negligence against the head of Ashirwad Heart Hospital in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Dr. Shah, the Director of Ashirwad Heart Hospital, was accused by a gynecologist of negligence when treating her father, who was experiencing a transient ischemic attack. In 1993, the patient passed away in the hospital while receiving treatment.
Although the trial court had exonerated Dr. Shah, the HC bench noted that the matter required a re-evaluation as the trial court had poorly handled crucial evidence and witnesses in its initial ruling.
"The judgment passed by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 49th Court, Vikhroli dated 14/05/2013 in Case No. 43/S/1994 is set aside...The matter is remanded to the said Court and let the trial Court start from the stage of hearing the arguments of the Parties," ordered the HC bench, led by S. M. Modak.
However, there is a deadline that the High Court has set for finishing the case. There has been a fifteen-day period granted to both parties to notify the court of the evidence. The accused will have a further fifteen days to complete his arguments. Seven days will then pass before the complainant can respond to the accused's points of argument. The trial Court should then follow the bench order and deliver the verdict within a legally reasonable time frame.
The case began in 1993 when the patient was taken to Ashirwad Heart Hospital with symptoms like a transient ischemic attack (TIA). The complainant, a doctor, first noticed that her father was sweating and had trouble balancing. She sought the advice of Dr. Desai, a cardiologist, and Dr. Panchal, a neurologist. Following their diagnosis of TIA, the doctors suggested the patient be admitted to the intensive care unit. However, on March 26, 1993, the patient passed away while receiving treatment.
The hospital said that a "Cervical active cardiac respiratory attack" was the cause of the patient's death. The physician also listed diabetes mellitus and hypertension as antecedent causes and "brain stem infarct" as the immediate causes. However, the complaint was made, and the doctor was charged with medical negligence.
Initially, Dr. Shah got rid of the negligence accusations by the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court. The trial court had rejected the complainant's plea, noting that there was no evidence in the file to support the accused's negligence. The doctor filed an appeal with the Bombay High Court contesting this ruling.
Before the HC bench, the complainant's doctor's attorney contended that the trial court had overlooked important material, such as witness statements and medical records. His observations included failing to connect the patient to a cardiac monitor, failing to take into account the patient's history of stroke, and continuing to provide medications that are dangerous for people who are having a heart attack. In addition, he said that the trial court had not even mentioned any of the evidence, not even the admissions the accused had made during cross-examination.
During the trial court's consideration of the case, the HC bench read the entire judgment and observed that the patient's examination by multiple doctors, the complainant's belonging to the medical community, the advice she followed following her father's death, and the distinction between liability in criminal and civil prosecutions were all highlighted.
In light of this finding, the HC bench decided to refer the case to the trial court, adding that "There has to be finding by the trial Court after considering the materials and after giving reasoning. I find both are absent in this case. I thought it proper not to give any findings on the basis of the available evidence, because the Parties will lose one opportunity to challenge those findings."
"After the remand, the trial court is required to hear the arguments of both the sides. It is made clear that this Court has not given any liberty to both the Parties to adduce evidence. The trial Court has to start with the proceeding from the stage of hearing the argument. It is true that matter is old. So certain time limit needs to be fixed for those stages. There has to be some time limit for completing the arguments," further stated the judgment.
The parties were ordered by the High Court to appear before the trial court on July 22, 2024.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Priyanka Pandey/MSM)