Patna High Court: Order quashing 22-Years-Old Medical Negligence Case against a Female Gynaecologist

In a petition seeking to quash the Trial Court’s refusal to discharge a female gynaecologist, Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, sitting singly, invoked powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Referring to key precedents such as Devendra Nath Padhi and Bhajan Lal, the Court set aside the proceedings, emphasizing the need to prevent injustice and misuse of legal processes. The petitioner, also the wife of the operating doctor, was alleged to have been part of the surgery team but played no direct role. After a long legal process Patna High Court Order quashing 22-Years-Old Medical Negligence Case against a Female Gynaecologist.

Background of the Dispute

The case was initiated over two decades ago, when the complainant sought treatment at a CGHS dispensary for abdominal pain. Following initial diagnostics that suggested mild Hepatomegaly and other non-critical issues, he was eventually diagnosed with Chyluria and referred for surgery. The operation was conducted by a medical team that included the petitioner.

After surgery, the patient experienced ongoing abdominal discomfort. A series of tests over time led him to believe that his right kidney had been removed without consent. Acting on this suspicion, he filed a complaint implicating the operating doctor and his team, including the gynaecologist.

Court’s Observations and Legal Reasoning

The Court placed significant reliance on findings by Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh, which clarified that the complainant’s kidney had not been removed but was severely atrophic. Furthermore, both state and national consumer forums had earlier dismissed the complainant’s allegations on similar grounds. As these rulings were unchallenged, the High Court treated them as final.

The bench emphasized that the petitioner’s mere presence in the operating theatre did not constitute active participation in the alleged act. Drawing on Bhajan Lal, the Court reiterated the conditions under which proceedings may be halted—particularly when claims are unsubstantiated, appear vindictive, or fail to point to a criminal offense.

Additionally, referring to Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Court stressed the higher threshold required for criminal prosecution of doctors, noting that negligence must go far beyond ordinary error.

In conclusion, the Court held that there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioner, and the matter fell within the categories outlined in Bhajan Lal. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

Case title- [Mamta Singh v. State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No.27653 of 2024, decided on 24-04-2025]