HYDERABAD: Justice EV Venugopal of the Telangana High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against oncologist Dr Vijaya Anand Reddy pertaining to a prolonged medical negligence case.
The doctor had filed a criminal petition challenging the dismissal of his discharge petition by the III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The case originates from a complaint filed on April 29, 2013, under Section 200 of the CrPC, alleging medical negligence resulting in the death of the complainant’s mother on November 12, 2009.
Based on the complaint, a chargesheet was filed against the doctor under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) of the IPC.
He had approached the trial court seeking discharge, arguing that no prima facie case was made out against him. He contended that there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint, the charges lacked the requisite legal ingredients, and the allegations did not disclose any role or deficiency in service attributable to him.
Senior counsel representing the oncologist asserted that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the continuation of proceedings amounted to an abuse of legal process.
The assistant public prosecutor, however, maintained that since the trial court had already taken cognizance of the offences and the chargesheet disclosed a prima facie case, the revision petition did not merit interference by the high court.
After hearing both parties, Justice Venugopal observed that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any causal link between Dr Reddy’s medical advice and the patient’s death, ruling out the applicability of Section 304-A IPC, which deals with death caused by rash or negligent acts.
The court further noted that there was no evidence of conspiracy to warrant charges under Section 120(B) IPC.
“The entire record shows that the petitioner has only suggested some tests to be done for determination of the disease. From an overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances, none of the ingredients of the alleged sections of law warrant taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner,” the orders stated.