Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 348 (PNJ)

Vaneeta Jhunthra v. State Of Haryana

2000-03-27

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. FIR No. 388 dated 6.6.99 has been registered under Sections 201, 337, 383, 420 and 34 IPC at Police Station City, Sirsa wherein the following allegations are found : 2. The complainant Geeta Rani and her husband-Gauri Shankar, who have got two children, did not want to have the third child. Therefore, they approached the petitioners - Mrs. Vaneeta Jhunthra and Dr. Satisb Jhunthra (who are wife and husband respectively) for the termination of the pregnancy of the complainant - Geeta Rani. Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra claimed herself to be an expert doctor in this matter, in the presence of her husband. On 12.2.99, the complainant and her husband went to the clinic of the petitioners and explained everthing, including the age of the pregnancy. Mrs. Vaneeta Jhunthra examined the complainant and discussed the matter with her husband - Satish Jhunthra, Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra in the presence of her husband, told that she was very well qualified, and experienced in terminating such pregnancy. Both the petitioners advised the complainant to undergo surgical operation, and it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 5000/- should be paid as settled by Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra. The amount was paid to Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra in the presence of her husband-Satish Jhunthra. On 12.2.99. Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra in the presence and with the assistance of her husband - Dr. Satish Jhunthra conducted the operation on the complainant for terminating the pregnancy, and after the operation, the complainant s husband was permitted to take the complainant to his house, after prescribing some medicines. In the same evening, the complainant started having pain in her womb and vagina, bleeding through vagina, and her abdomen became distended. On 13.2.99, the complainant and her husband again visited the clinic of the petitioners and reported. Again Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra, with the help of her husband, put some surgical instruments through her vagina, and thereafter told that everything has been set right. However, the pain did not stop inspite of the medicines given. Therefore, the complainant and her husband came to the clinic of the petitioners the third time on 17.2.99 to get relief from pain and also to stop bleeding. At the instance of Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra, the ultrasound was done, but the reports of the same were concealed and destroyed by the petitioners. Therefore, the complainant and her husband came to the clinic of the petitioners the third time on 17.2.99 to get relief from pain and also to stop bleeding. At the instance of Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra, the ultrasound was done, but the reports of the same were concealed and destroyed by the petitioners. The complainant was having pain and bleeding from the vagina and her abdomen was distended. The petitioners again took the complainant to the Labour Room and conducted operation through the vagina for the third time. During this operation, the petitioners showed utmost negligence and recklessness. They acted rashly and negligently in performing the operation for the third time. During this operation, the colon which carries the stool outside the body, was cut off due to the negligence and incompetence of the petitioners. The complainant was kept in the clinic till 24.2.99 by the petitioners. Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra ordered the husband of the complainant to deposit Rs. 15000/-, if he wanted to save the complainant, which the complainants husband did under pressure. Thus, the petitioners extorted Rs. 15,000/- from him. The cutting of the colon was not disclosed to the complainant and her husband. Since there was no improvement, the husband of the complainant took her to his house. As a result of the cutting of the colon, the stool started passing through the vagina continuously. The petitioners again checked the complainant on 27.2.99 and some medicines were inserted by them in the vagina. Until 5.3.99, the complainant remained under constant pain with fever. On 5.3.99, the husband of the complainant took her to the Nursing Home of Dr. K.K. Gupta, where she was checked by Dr. Priti Gupta, who told about the cutting of the colon, due to which the stool passed through the vagina. She, further, told that there was high degree of infection inside the womb on account of the cut in the colon, and that some pieces of dead flesh remained inside the womb during the operation for the termination of the pregnancy. After this, the complainant and her husband came to the petitioners on 5.3.99, and was referred to Dr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma of Delhi. But, on the reference of Dr. Priti Gupta, she was admitted in the Medical College, Rohtak on 6.3.99. It was found that uterus of the complainant had been badly affected, and the same was, therefore, removed. After this, the complainant and her husband came to the petitioners on 5.3.99, and was referred to Dr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma of Delhi. But, on the reference of Dr. Priti Gupta, she was admitted in the Medical College, Rohtak on 6.3.99. It was found that uterus of the complainant had been badly affected, and the same was, therefore, removed. The complainant was further operated upon, and a new copper pipe was fitted for the purpose of passing of the stool. Dr. Vaneeta Jhunthra was not competent and qualified to do the termination of the pregnancy. 3. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Sirsa for bail in anticipation of arrest, but the same was declined by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for the same relief. 4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even when the complainant and her husband (who is himself a RMP) came to the clinic of the first petitioner for the first time, it was found to be a spoiled case of incomplete termination of 2-1/2 months old pregnancy, which was earlier mishandled by a private mid-wife. Due to which the complainant had developed complications. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant was complaining of acute pain and was bleeding, and the ultra sound report also confirmed that the abortion already done by the private mid-wife was incomplete and certain things were left, because of which she was having acute pain and bleeding. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that D & C was the only advisable treatment, that the first petitioner explained the complications which could occur with the conduct of D & C, and it was only after fully understanding the nature of the problem and the complications, the husband of the complainant had also given in writing his consent that the D & C can be conducted at his own risk. The petitioners have also produced Annexure P-2 (indoor treatment particulars) wherein these facts are mentioned. It is also contended that the first petitioner thereafter conducted the D & C and advised that the complainant should be under medical observation for two or three days, but against the medical advice, the complainant was taken away from the hospital on 13.2.99. The petitioners have also produced Annexure P-2 (indoor treatment particulars) wherein these facts are mentioned. It is also contended that the first petitioner thereafter conducted the D & C and advised that the complainant should be under medical observation for two or three days, but against the medical advice, the complainant was taken away from the hospital on 13.2.99. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this fact is also found in Annexure P-2. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that thereafter the complainant did not come, but came only on 17.2.99 complaining of pain and distention in the abdomen. According to the petitioners, the complainant was in a serious condition, that she was given the best treatment, kept under medical observation and was discharged by the petitioner No. 1 on 24.2.99 in an absolutely normal condition. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that only one D & C was conducted by the first petitioner, that thereafter only medicines were given, and the first petitioner cleaned the vagine so that it may not get infected. It is further contended that since the husband of the complainant was a RMP, not even a single pie was charged from them. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant and her husband thereafter came on or about 5th or 6th of June, 1999 complaining that the complainant was passing stool through the vagina, and that the complainant was bleeding. The complainants husband also told about having consulted Dr. K.K. Gupta, and having been checked by lady - Dr. Priti Gupta. The complainants husband also told the first petitioner that the complainant had taken treatment from Dr. Guptas clinic, and that in view of the high degree of infection caused inside the womb on account of the cut in the colon, the complainant had been advised to consult the doctor at the Medical College, Rohtak. 8. According to the petitioners, though the first petitioner and the second petitioner are running their clinics in the same complex the 2nd petitioner has nothing to do with the practice of the first petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 2nd petitioner had no connection with the treatment given by the 1st petiitoner, and there is nothing to show that he did anything or took part in the D & C done by the first petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 2nd petitioner had no connection with the treatment given by the 1st petiitoner, and there is nothing to show that he did anything or took part in the D & C done by the first petitioner. It is also contended that there is nothing to show that the first petitioner or second petitioner was responsible for the cutting of the colon. It is further contended that the complainant had taken treatment from another doctor also. 9. The learned counsel for the State and the complainant, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners had acted rashly and negligenty due to which the colon of the complainant was cut resulting in the passing of the stool through the vagina. 10. But taking into consideration the arguments put forth by both the sides, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail in anticipation of arrest. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, if the association of the petitioners is necessary for the purpose of investigation, the Investigating Officer shall issue notice giving them sufficient time for joining investigation, on which the petitioners shall associate themselves with the investigation. The petitioners shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. Petition allowed.