Delhi Court Granted Relief To Pediatric Surgeon Accused Of Removing Child’s Kidney

A Delhi court recently quashed a Magistrate order directing the filing of an FIR against a pediatric-surgeon over allegations of medical negligence in removing a minor boy’s kidney.

Additional Sessions Judge Dheeraj Mor granted relief to Dr. YK Sarin, who was accused of removing a two-year-old child’s left kidney without his parents’ consent. The parents claimed that the kidney removed was functional and that its removal amounted to criminal negligence.

The Court determined that there was no incriminating evidence on the record to support such claims against the doctor or to justify the filing of an FIR.

The Judge stated, “There is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against the petitioner in the form of a report from a competent doctor or committee of doctors specialized in the field to which the medical negligence is attributed. The directions for the registration of a FIR against the petitioner defy the guidelines and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Superior Courts in the absence of the said pre-requisite prima facie opinion of a medical expert.”

The Court further added that a FIR cannot be filed against the doctor based on the complainant’s whims and fancies, guided by unfounded and unsubstantiated assumptions, solely to satisfy his dissatisfaction with his child’s treatment.

On October 28, 2021, a Magistrate Court ordered the city police to file a FIR against the doctor. Dr Sarin then challenged the Magistrate’s order.

On February 9, the Additional Sessions Court set aside the Magistrate’s order, giving a breather to the surgeon. The Sessions Court relied on five independent and separate investigation reports prepared by medical professionals, which absolved the surgeon of any medical negligence.

The Judge noted, “In all of the aforementioned inquiries, medical experts have categorically concluded that no negligence on the part of the petitioner in the treatment of the child can be attributed. They have concluded that there is no evidence on the record to support the complainant’s allegations.”

According to the Court, an investigation conducted by the Union Ministry of Health and Welfare found that the doctor demonstrated a reasonable degree of commitment in treating the child’s difficult case.

The Court also noted that these committees had thoroughly examined and investigated the alleged negligence of Lok Nayak hospital doctors, including the petitioner.

The petitioner admitted that the child’s kidney had not been properly preserved after the organ was removed. He did, however, inform the Court that action had been taken against the nurses who were responsible for the incident. Furthermore, he contended that even if the lapse was true, no criminal offence could be charged against him.

On this point, the Court agreed with the petitioner-doctor, stating, “The improper preservation of the complainant’s son’s removed kidney and the misplacement of a part of his treatment record do not constitute a culpable act. At most, it is a case of civil negligence, for which a FIR cannot be directed to be filed. As a result, the Trial Court erroneously relied on the aforementioned facts to invoke his powers under section 156(3) of the CrPC.”

In light of this, the Sessions Court ruled that there was no justifiable reason to believe the petitioner had committed any crime and quashed the Magistrate’s order.