Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Background
The appellant, a surgeon, performed an Orchidopexy (repositioning an undescended testicle) on a one-and-a-half-year-old child, but during the procedure also performed an Orchidectomy (removal of the testicle). The child's father alleged that consent had been given only for Orchidopexy and that the reference to Orchidectomy was later fraudulently inserted into the consent form, and an FIR was registered alleging offences including forgery. A charge-sheet was filed and a criminal case registered against the doctor, and the Madras High Court declined to quash the proceedings, prompting the doctor to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the consent form and a court-directed Medical Board's opinion, finding that the form listed both Orchidopexy and Orchidectomy (separated by a slash) as options in the surgery-type column, and that the Medical Board and the Director of Medical Services found no fault with the consent form and confirmed Orchidectomy was a recognised alternative procedure to prevent future malignancy risk. The Court held that while questions of tampering/interpolation are ordinarily factual matters for trial, a High Court is not absolutely barred from examining such questions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where necessary to prevent abuse of process. Since there was no evidence of different ink or handwriting suggesting interpolation, no malice was attributed to the doctor, and the procedure adopted was a recognised medical alternative, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court's process. It accordingly set aside the High Court's order and quashed the proceedings.
Lesson Learnt
Criminal proceedings against a doctor cannot be sustained merely on an allegation of exceeding consent when the medical evidence shows the procedure performed was a recognised, medically sound alternative and there is no independent evidence of document tampering. Courts can and should quash such proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process, even though tampering allegations are normally trial issues.