Doctors must be protected from frivolous and unjust prosecution: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench recently emphasised the importance of safeguarding healthcare professionals from unjust criminal prosecution. [Dr. Prashant Sopan Ahire v. State of Maharashtra]

A Bench of Justices Vibha Kankawadi and SG Chapalgaonkar quashed a case filed against Dr Prashant Sopan Ahire, an Ayurvedic medical practitioner accused of medical negligence. While doing so, it remarked,

"We are not oblivious of the fact that the criminal prosecutions against medical practitioners are on an increased rate; they require to be protected from frivolous and unjust prosecution, particularly when that has been used for pressuring them for extracting uncalled or unjust compensation."

Dr Ahire, who runs Samarth Clinic in Jalgaon, treated a patient from May 13 to May 16, 2021. During this period, the patient displayed serious health issues, including weakness and suspected typhoid.

After treatment, the patient's condition worsened, prompting referrals to multiple hospitals. Ultimately, the patient suffered a brain hemorrhage and passed away on June 1, 2021. A first information report (FIR) was subsequently filed against Dr Ahire for allegedly causing death by negligence.

The prosecution argued that the doctor prescribed an irrational combination of modern medicines, claiming that this contributed to the patient's deterioration. They presented a report from an expert committee that stated Dr Ahire, as an Ayurvedic practitioner, was not qualified to prescribe certain allopathic medication that supposedly led to the patient's decline.

In contrast, Dr Ahire's counsel contended that he acted within his professional scope. It was argued that Ayurvedic practitioners are authorised to prescribe certain modern medicines based on their training.

It was further pointed out that the patient's death was ultimately due to brain hemorrhage, a condition that arose after Dr Ahire's treatment, and was unrelated to the medication he prescribed. The defence also highlighted the absence of a post-mortem report that would have clarified the definitive cause of death.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court concluded that there was no direct causal connection between Dr Ahire's treatment and the patient's death. The Bench acknowledged that while the expert committee identified the use of irrational combinations of medicines, it did not establish a direct link between these prescriptions and the fatal outcome.

“It may be possible that owing to negligence attributed against the applicant, some case for actionable negligence in civil law is made out; however, in absence of proximity between cause of death and negligent act, which is sine qua non for prosecution against a medical practitioner, criminal prosecution under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained,” the Court stated while quashing the case of medical negligence.

Advocate VB Patil appeared for Dr Ahire.

Advocate JV Patil represented the complainant.

Additional Public Prosecutor AM Phule appeared for the State.

[Read Order]