Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Bombay high court‘s Aurangabad bench rejected the anticipatory bail application of a paediatric surgeon booked on a charge of medical negligence resulting in the death of a five-and-a-half-year-old boy after a minor surgery. The surgeon had moved the high court after a sessions court rejected his anticipatory bail plea.
The paediatric surgeon is among six doctors booked in the case.
The boy was operated on for a genital disorder on April 26 last year and he died on May 6, 2024. “There is suppression of the procedure undertaken in the OT (operation theatre) and also in the PICU (paediatric intensive care unit). The CCTV footage in the OT does not correspond to the clinical notes. Prima facie, it appears that real reasons leading to the cause of death of the child are sought to be suppressed. As such, it would be difficult for this court to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant,” the single-member bench of Justice Arun Pednekar said in its order on March 13.
The father of the boy filed a complaint against doctors for medical negligence with the Pundalik Nagar police station on June 1, 2024, and later a case was registered on Nov 27.
It is contended by the accused paediatric surgeon that there was a delay of 205 days in lodging the FIR and the medical report (by a committee of the doctors of GMCH on Aug 13, 2024) clearly indicates that there is no negligence in the treatment given by him to the patient. The doctor, while praying for anticipatory bail, said he cooperated with the investigation after receipt of notice from police. He also argued that his custodial interrogation is not necessary as he is a well-respected surgeon who has performed more than 6,000 surgeries on child patients as a paediatric surgeon.
On Aug 13, 2024, the committee of the doctors of GMCH furnished its opinion on allegations of medical negligence. The opinion read, “Considering all the provided treatment records, other documents and the CCTV footage of the patient, it is observed that the standard medical treatment protocol has been reasonably followed in the operation theatre and in PICU. Accordingly, it can be opined that there was no visible medical negligence in the treatment of the patient.”
As the aforesaid committee did not answer the questions posed by the investigating officer, the parent of the deceased boy filed a petition before the HC. On the basis of directions given by the court on Oct 14, another expert committee was constituted and all the questions posed by the investigating officer were answered.
The counsels representing the boy’s father said the report (of another expert committee that was formed after court directions on Oct 14) mentioned that there was medical negligence. It was submitted that after the negligent conduct of the doctor leading to the tragedy, the doctor and his team consciously manipulated the record to destroy the evidence establishing the crime. The medical opinion dated July 11, 2024, about the cause of death of the child given by the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar mentioned “Multi-organ failure due to septicaemia following hypoxic brain damage in an operated case for recurrent balanoposthitis with penile torsion,” as the cause of the boy’s death.
Referring to the report of the this committee of doctors, the court said it is of the view that the mishap occurred on account of lapses on the part of the anaesthetist/surgeon. “The CCTV footage does not match with the clinical notes and thus, it is clear that there has been some error in the OT which resulted in the mishap and that the operating doctors thereafter tried to cover up the situation and did not give clear information to the relatives of the patient and continued to keep the relatives of the child in the dark about the prognosis and possible outcome and thereafter, the hospital continued to charge for the treatment of the patient till his demise,” the court said.
The court also observed that CCTV footage of the post-operation of the child in the ICU for the period from April 26 to March 5 is not available, although for earlier and later periods it is stated to be available. Meanwhile, an anaesthetist, who is among six doctors who have been booked in the case, has withdrawn his bail application before a local court.
