Private hospitals and nursing homes treat patients like ATMs: Allahabad HC dismisses the plea of a doctor seeking quashing of medical negligence case against him

The High Court said that prima facie offence was made out against the doctor.

The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on doctors and private nursing homes, for admitting patients without appropriate facilities and infrastructure and charging them huge amounts of money.

Dismissing an application filed by a doctor, the High Court noted in the judgment dated July 24, 2025, “It is common practice these days that private nursing homes/hospitals tend to entice the patients for treatment even though they do not have the doctors or infrastructure. When the patient is admitted to a private hospital, they start calling for the doctor to treat the patient. It is common knowledge that the private hospitals/nursing homes have started treating the patients as guinea pigs/ATM machines only to extort money out of them.”

The applicant, named Dr Ashok Kumar Rai, approached the High Court for the quashing of an FIR filed against him on July 29, 2007, which says that the foetus of a pregnant woman, who was admitted to his nursing home, died due to his medical negligence. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed his application, saying that a prima facie offence was made out against him and allowed criminal proceedings to continue against the doctor.

“In this matter, though consent was taken around 12 O’Clock, but the operation was conducted at 5.30 P.M. Delay in conducting the surgery was because of non-availability of the anesthetist, which resulted in the death of the child,” the judge said.

Facts of the case

On July 28, 2007, a woman in the advanced stage of pregnancy was admitted to Savitri Nursing Home, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, around 10.30 a.m. for delivery. After examining the patient, Dr Rai advised a C-section. Around 12 o’clock, the family of the patient gave consent for the surgery. However, the surgery was delayed by several hours due to the absence of an anaesthetist, who arrived around 3:30 pm. The surgery was finally carried out around 5:30 pm, but the delay resulted in the death of the child. The post-mortem report of the child described “prolonged labour” as the cause of death.

An FIR was filed by the family of the patient against the doctor under Sections 304A, 315, 323 and 506 of the IPC. A case regarding the same has been going on in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria. The present application was filed by the applicant seeking the quashing of the entire proceedings against him.

“A bare perusal of the post mortem report of the foetus, which has been annexed along with the supplementary counter affidavit, shows that the cause of death was “Prolonged Labour”. A bare perusal of the post mortem report of the foetus, which has been annexed along with the supplementary counter affidavit, shows that the cause of death was ‘Prolonged Labour’,” the High Court noted.

Findings of the Medical Board not credible: HC

After the registration of the FIR, the police wrote to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to seek his opinion. The CMO invited the applicant to submit his version of the incident and constituted a Medical Board to look into the issue. The Medical Board declared the doctor not guilty. The applicant placed reliance on the decision of the Medical Board to defend himself. However, the High Court said that the findings of the Medical Board were not credible as neither the post-mortem report nor the Operation Theatre note (OT note) was placed before it for examination.

“All the documents were not produced before the Medical Board, and hence, the opinion of the Medical Board would have no credence in this matter. This is a case where prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and there is no justification to invoke inherent powers for any interference in the impugned proceedings,” the High Court noted in its judgment.

On a cautionary note, the High Court called for striking a balance between the rights of medical practitioners who are unfairly blamed for an untoward incident and their obligation towards patients to perform their duty skillfully.

News