Kolkata: Noting that unlike civil negligence, criminal negligence requires a higher threshold of culpability, Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against one doctor while rejecting pleas of two other doctors in a case of alleged medical negligence where a medical practitioner died during a surgical procedure.
The bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh was moved by all three doctors (petitioners) Dr Pritha Dutta, Dr Samir Roy and Dr Jyotsna Basu, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against them.
Dr Arunima Ghosh, a medical practitioner was undergoing treatment for chronic abdominal pain under care of Dr Samir Roy. She was scheduled to undergo D&C and Laparoscopic Dye Test on March 5, 2014. Following administration of general anaesthesia and the surgical procedure at Kothari Medical Centre in Alipore, she suffered a cardiac arrest and died. Her husband lodged a complaint alleging medical negligence. The respondent counsel submitted that death occurred during basic diagnostic surgery in a healthy 31-year-old woman. The medical team failed to use essential equipment which is critical during laparoscopic procedures. Expert committee reports, including one by the Directorate of Health Services and another from Bankura Sammilani Medical College, concluded that medical staff exhibited collective negligence.
Dr Pritha Dutta’s counsel submitted that she only assisted in the surgery and did not conduct it. She was initially cited as a prosecution witness but later named as an accused in a supplementary chargesheet without specific allegations.
Counsel for Dr Roy, the lead surgeon and gynaecologist, submitted standard medical protocols were followed. Counsel of Dr Jyotsna Basu, the anaesthesiologist, submitted that she conducted pre-anaesthetic checks and monitored the patient during surgery. She followed all standard protocols.
Perusing the two reports of the committee of doctors, the court found no contributory negligence of Pritha Dutta and quashed the criminal proceedings against her.
In the case of Dr Roy and Dr Basu, the court found that the report reflected that “some of the basic requirements were not adhered to by the surgeon and the anaesthetist which any doctor of ordinary prudence should have adopted and exercised at the pre-operative stage and also in course of the operation procedure”. Hence, their pleas were rejected.