Delhi High Court Quashes Medical Negligence FIR Against Venkateshwar Hospital Following Amicable Settlement

Criminal proceedings quashed as court acknowledges settlement and absence of gross negligence; costs imposed on petitioners.

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Venkateshwar Hospital and its senior consultant, Dr. Dipti K. Yadav, following allegations of medical negligence. The case revolved around a complaint by a patient, identified as Respondent No. 2, who alleged that a foreign object was left inside her abdominal cavity during a C-section surgery, leading to severe infection and requiring another surgery.

Presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, the court acknowledged that the matter was amicably settled between the parties at the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. As part of the settlement, a compensation of Rs. 14,00,000 was agreed upon and paid to the complainant, who expressed her satisfaction and requested the quashing of the proceedings, stating that continuation would result in undue harassment.

The judgment reflects on the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if the matter is settled amicably, provided the facts justify such discretion. Justice Mahajan emphasized that while there were allegations of negligence, the acts or omissions did not amount to "gross negligence" or "recklessness" to attract criminal liability.

The court noted that the Disciplinary Committee of the Delhi Medical Council had already taken action by temporarily removing Dr. Yadav's name from the State Medical Register. The committee had concluded that while due diligence was not exercised, the oversight did not reach the threshold of criminal negligence.

In considering the broader implications, the court reiterated the established legal principles that criminal liability for medical professionals requires a high degree of negligence, amounting to gross negligence or recklessness. It further emphasized the importance of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the court's process.

In light of the settlement and the absence of gross negligence, the court decided that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. Nonetheless, acknowledging that state machinery was engaged, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Martyrs' Fund.

This decision underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain between upholding legal standards and respecting amicable settlements, especially in cases with significant civil overtones.

Bottom Line:

High Court has the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if the matter is amicably settled between the parties, provided the facts of the case justify such exercise of discretion.

Statutory provision(s): Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 336, 337, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Venkateshwar Hospital v. State of NCT Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821394