Refuses relief to doctor accused in 2007 foetal death case; slams delay, missing records
Prayagraj, July 26 (UNI): The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the functioning of private hospitals and nursing homes, stating that they often treat patients as “ATM machines” for financial gain. The court made these remarks while refusing to quash criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of medical negligence that led to the death of a foetus in Uttar Pradesh’s Deoria district.
The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar was hearing a petition filed by Dr Ashok Kumar Rai, who sought to have the case against him dismissed. The case stems from a July 27, 2007 incident in which the pregnant wife of the complainant’s younger brother was admitted to Dr Rai’s nursing home. The family had consented to a caesarean section at 11 am, but the surgery was not performed until 5:30 pm, by which time the foetus had died.
According to the FIR, when the family questioned the delay, the nursing home staff and associates allegedly assaulted them. It was also alleged that the doctor had charged ₹8,700 and demanded an additional ₹10,000, while refusing to issue a discharge slip.
The court noted that crucial documents like operation theatre notes were not submitted to the medical board, which weakened the doctor’s defence. It observed that the anaesthetist was called only at 3:30 pm, suggesting the hospital was unprepared and lacked essential facilities.
“This is a case where the doctor admitted the patient but failed to conduct the operation on time despite having consent from the family. It reflects not only negligence but a clear intent to delay for profit,” the court remarked.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents in Dr Suresh Gupta vs State of Delhi and Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab, the bench reiterated that while medical professionals should be protected from baseless litigation, such protection only applies when due care and professional standards are followed.
Calling it a “classic” case of avoidable delay, the court cited the post-mortem report that attributed the foetus’s death to “prolonged labour pain.” It said the sequence of events—admission time, consent, and delayed surgery—suggested intentional negligence.
Finding no merit in the plea, the court allowed the case to proceed, holding that the matter must be tried on evidence, particularly in light of the missing medical records and apparent lack of preparation at the facility.
