Case - A.S.V.

Narayanan Rao vs
Ratnamala & ors.
Facts –
1. Appellant – cardiologist
2. Respondent – wife of deceased
3. Divakar (deceased) consulted the cardiologist and complained about the pain in chest
4. Admitted to the hospital
5. Doctor informed divakar’s wife about a mild heart attack
6. Angiogram conducted
7. Three blocks in the vessels found in the report
8. Angioplasty performed and was unsuccessful
9. Doctor informed divakar’s wife
10. By pass surgery conducted
11. Various complications developed afterwards and divakar died after 14 days
12. Divakar’s wife lodged complaint against the doctor under section 304 A IPC
13. The police after investigation found the case be of lack of evidence
14. Divakar’s wife approached metropolitan magistrate and enough material existed to the try the
doctor for the offence under 304 A IPC
15. Doctor approached high court and was found guilty of negligence
16. Criminal petition was filed praying the order passed by high court to be quashed
Law point- Section 304 A IPC
Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or
negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both

Issue
whether the doctor was negligent while performing his duty and to be punished under
section 304 A IPC ?
 Court observation
1. The court considered various aspects of negligence laid down in Jacob Mathew vs. state of
Punjab that
A. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist.
B. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher.

2. The court further observed that doctor’s are not immune from the legal proceedings and it is
important to protect them from any unjust prosecution.
3. The court pointed out that there is a need to frame statutory rules or administrative instructions
having guidelines for the prosecution of doctor’s under the charges of criminal negligence
4. The court also observed the opinion of the Andhra Pradesh medical council, that doctors seem to
have made an attempt to do their best as per records presented to them
5. The court also observed the reason given by high court in their decision that “the appellant
chose to conduct the angioplasty without having a surgical standby unit and such failure resulted
in delay of 5 hours in conducting by-pass after the angioplasty failed and the appellant did not
consult a Cardio Anesthesian before conducting an angioplasty” and it was found in the evidence
given by Dr. Surajit Dan before the A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission that the time gap
between the angioplasty failure and the surgery is not THE FACTOR for the death of the patient.
Court held - The prosecution of the appellant is
unnecessary because the negligence, if any, on
the part of the appellant cannot be said to be
“gross” and therefore the high court judgment
quashed.