The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied bail to a quack doctor accused of causing a death due to improper treatment. The court emphasized that unregistered medical practitioners are a serious threat to public health in India.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused bail to a quack doctor accused of causing a man’s death in 2022 by administering incorrect treatment.
Justice Namit Kumar highlighted that the investigation revealed the accused had been practicing medicine in his clinic without holding the necessary professional qualifications required by law.
The Court also observed that, in an attempt to destroy evidence, the accused disposed of the victim’s body by abandoning it on a road near a paying guest facility.
The Court stated,
“The trial court must determine through evidence whether the petitioner was a registered medical practitioner and whether he was operating a clinic, Undeniably, a life has been lost.”
The Court further remarked on the serious risk unregistered medical practitioners pose to public health in India.
The Court added,
“Even with existing laws and regulations, numerous individuals continue to practice medicine without the necessary qualifications or registration, jeopardizing patients’ lives. This often leads to misdiagnosis, improper treatment, and the deterioration of patients’ conditions. They represent a significant threat to public health in India,”
Faheem, the accused, was allegedly operating a medical clinic in Aliyar village, Manesar, Gurugram. The complainant, Ram Avatar, claimed that Faheem’s incorrect treatment led to the death of his nephew, Leeladhar.
Avatar stated that he had reviewed CCTV footage from the paying guest accommodation where his nephew resided, which showed Leeladhar suffering from a fever and receiving treatment from Faheem. He further alleged that his nephew visited Faheem just one day before receiving news of his death.
Additionally, Avatar accused Faheem, along with his friend Shubham, of placing Leeladhar’s body on the road near the paying guest facility after his death.
However, Faheem’s counsel argued that the post-mortem report indicated Leeladhar died naturally due to asphyxia, or breathlessness. The counsel asserted that Faheem had only administered a Monosef injection, which is an antibiotic.
The defense further contended that Faheem neither the intent (mens rea) nor the knowledge that his actions would or could result in the patient’s death. Even if the allegations were accepted as true, the counsel argued that no offense under Section 304(ii) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was established against the accused, as a guilty mind and a deliberate act are essential components of this charge, which were absent in this case.
The counsel also pointed out that Faheem has been in custody for the last 1 year and 9 months, and that two prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
The Court noted that it was not in a position to comment at this stage, lacking the medical or technical expertise to interpret the medical evidence, procedures, or treatments involved.
Read Also: Punjab and Haryana High Court Criticizes Haryana Officials and Firm in PMFBY Claim Case
Furthermore, the Court observed that a person convicted under Section 304(ii) of the IPC could face imprisonment for up to ten years.
The Court stated as it dismissed the bail plea,
“While it’s true that prosecution witnesses Puroshottom and Ram Avtar did not support the prosecution’s case, it is also important to note that the investigation agency has yet to present scientific and medical evidence to establish the truth and determine the cause of death before the trial court,”
Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, along with advocate Arnav Ghai, represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Saurabh Mohunta appeared on behalf of the State of Haryana.
Read Order: [Mohammad Faheem v. State of Haryana]