Gujarat High Court: In a bail application filed by a doctor who allegedly caused death of two patients by performing an unnecessary angioplasty procedure on them, a Single Judge Bench of M.R. Mengdey, J., dismissed the application, holding that the involvement of the accused doctor in the present offence could not be ruled out at this stage since the material available on record indicated a strong prima facie case against him.
Background
Khyati Hospital (‘the hospital’) had organized a medical camp at Borisana village wherein several persons were examined under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (‘PMJAY’) Scheme. Out of these patients, some were suspected to be suffering from heart-related conditions and were asked to come to the hospital. Accordingly, they were examined again, and cardiograms and angiographies were performed. Thereafter, some patients were advised to undergo angioplasty, as they allegedly had blockages in the arteries to the extent of 80-90 percent. Allegedly, out of the seven patients who received angioplasty, two died due to post-procedure complications.
After these deaths, a team comprising doctors of Civil Hospital, Sola, Ahmedabad, was tasked with conducting an inquiry into the incident. After the inquiry, an FIR was lodged at the behest of the State Machinery under Sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 340(1), 318, 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). Accordingly, the accused doctor was arrested in connection with the present offence.
Aggrieved, he filed the present application.
Analysis
The Court stated that the witness statements indicated that some of the witnesses had no complaints related to any heart ailments, and they had attended the camp at Borisana village with trivial complaints. However, they were wrongfully advised to undergo a cardiogram and angiography. The witnesses expressed their desire not to undergo any procedure, but they were heavily persuaded by the accused doctor to undergo angioplasty with the threat that they would be at risk of death.
The Court added that the material on record indicated that the investigation officer sought an opinion regarding the reports of all the patients and the requirements for any procedure upon them from the U.N. Mehta Institute for Cardiology & Research Centre (‘U.N. Mehta’). The report given by U.N. Mehta opined that in some cases, either no angioplasty was necessary or where only one stent was required, more than one stent was inserted.
Further, the Court noted that evidence indicated that angiography reports were prepared in the handwriting of the accused doctor. Later, those reports were changed after the inquiry authority had called the accused doctor and his co-accused for inquiry, i.e., they were incorrect and manipulated.
The Court rejected the contention that the expert body of the PMJAY scheme had granted approval for the angioplasties after seeing the reports uploaded by the hospital, stating that the reports appeared to be doubtful. Additionally, noting the opinion of U.N. Mehta, the Court stated that if the authority had approved the procedure despite these glaring facts, then their role also required investigation.
The Court further noted that the accused doctor played a pivotal role in the present offence as he performed the angioplasty on the patients, though it was unnecessary in some cases. The witnesses, i.e., the patients, in their statements, categorically stated that when they expressed their disinclination to the accused doctor, there was heavy persuasion by him for undergoing the procedure by threatening them with the risk of their death. Thus, the Court held that the involvement of the accused doctor in the present offence could not be ruled out at this stage since the material available on record indicated a strong prima facie case against him.
Regarding the contention that there are no ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 105 of the BNS against the accused doctor, the Court stated that the material on record made the Court believe that, at this stage, two unfortunate deaths were not natural and therefore, it was not possible for the Court to conclude that the offence under Section 105 was not made out.
The Court stated that the fact remained that seven patients were forced to undergo the procedure of angioplasty without their wish and any need in some cases. Furthermore, the material on record also suggested that no proper post-operative care was taken, and some of the patients were transferred to the general ward after the procedure. There was no specialist doctor to look after the patients in case of any emergency. The Court concurred with the contention that this was not a case of simple medical negligence.
“It was a systematic attempt to mint more money under the PMJAY scheme from the Government.”
The Court remarked that the present case was a classic example of the abuse of the scheme floated by the Government for the welfare of the general public. The PMJAY scheme has been in place to provide quality medical treatment to the public at a minimal cost. The treatment expenses are borne by the Government, and the same are reimbursed to the hospital concerned by the Government. This scheme was allegedly misused in the present case to fulfill the materialistic ambitions of a few.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application.
[Prashant v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail – After Chargesheet) No. 6649 of 2025, decided on 08-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Sr. Advocate Jal Soli Unwala, BN Limbachia, and Nishith K Joshi
For the respondent: Ankit V Dixit, Rajeshkumar S Mishra, and Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave
