Judgment : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this Petition with a prayer to direct the respondent-Police to obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a Doctor in Government Service qualified in that branch of Medical practice and complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the de facto complainant in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has preferred a Complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 304-A, 406, 418, 420 and 464, I.P.C. and the respondent-Police on receipt of the same, registered case in Crime No.819/2006. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the father of late Vignesh, who is an intelligent and healthy person without any medical complications. However, he had over-growth problem from his childhoood. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners son was admitted in the hospital in the name and style as “Lifeline Hospital” and the first accused who is a Doctor persuaded the petitioner to subject his son for surgery and assured that there may not be any side effect or any other complication. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accordingly, surgery was conducted on 4. 2006 by the second accused-Dr. J.S. Rajkumar. After the surgery, the petitioner’s son suffered from severe abdominal pain and the second accused informed that there is fluid collection in the abdomen of Vignesh and on the same evening, the second surgery was conducted without informing the petitioner and his family. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 14. 2006 there was further complication to the petitioner’s son and he had septic shock and therefore, treatment on Zigris was started. It is the grievance of the petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner that even this developed further complication and the same was suppressed by the doctor by not informing the same to the petitioner and his family members. It is also stated by the petitioner, that the petitioner’s son was given treatment on Cansidas for fungal infection. It is further pointed out that on 24. It is also stated by the petitioner, that the petitioner’s son was given treatment on Cansidas for fungal infection. It is further pointed out that on 24. 2006 the second accused had performed tracheostomy on Vignesh and he was in prolonged ventilation. Thereafter, the patient was moved to I.C.U on 24. 2006 and on 24. 2006, the petitioner and his family members were informed that Vignesh was having gastric fistula and the third surgery has to be done to remove his stomach and only at that time, the petitioner and his family members knew that Vignesh was in a critical condition. Thereafter, Vignesh was shifted to Apollo Hospital. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has incurred not less than Rs.27 lakhs as against a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- as informed by the second accused for the surgery of weight reduction. It is submitted by the petitioner that Vignesh was moved to Apollo Hospital at 6.00 a.m on 24. 2006 and the Doctors of Apollo Hospital found that Vignesh was affected with sepsis and that it was very severe and it would be fatal to Vignesh if they were to touch Vignesh with a knife and they informed that any further treatment can be done only after the infection is eradicated. Unfortunately, the said Vignesh died on 24. 2006 evening and the Doctors of Apollo Hospital certified that the death was due to “Morbid Obesity Exploratorive Laparotomy on 4. 2006 (Done elsewhere) Post Operative-Gastric Fistula/Sipsis”. The said Vignesh was aged 22 years at the time of his death. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the conduct of the second accused/Doctor, the petitioner has been constrained to initiate criminal proceedings against the second accused and the hospital authorities for the offences under Sections 304-A, 406, 418, 420 and 464, I.P.C. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a case was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner in Crime No.819/2006. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case was registered on 211. 2006 itself, but till date, investigation is pending. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case was registered on 211. 2006 itself, but till date, investigation is pending. 6. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this Petition seeking the relief of direction to direct the respondent police to obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a Doctor in Government Service qualified in that branch of Medical practice as per the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 SCC (Crl) 1369. 7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that as on date, the investigation is in progress. It is further submitted that originally, a case was registered by the first respondent-Police namely the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch and the case was transferred to the second respondent namely the Inspector of Police, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Further, as on date, the case was entrusted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ashok Nagar Range, T. Nagar and the Investigating Agency is taking all steps to complete the investigation. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and also perused the Petition filed by the petitioner and the other materials available on records. 10. This is an unfortunate case wherein an young person named Vignesh aged 22 years died due to the alleged medical negligence which led to medical complication resulting in his death. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has incurred huge amount of more than Rs.27 lakhs for the treatment of his son Vignesh for weight reduction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the relief of direction to direct the respondent to obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a Doctor in Government Service qualified in that branch of Medical practice. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1369, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while stipulating the guidelines in respect of the case of alleged medical negligence has held as follows: “52. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1369, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while stipulating the guidelines in respect of the case of alleged medical negligence has held as follows: “52. Statutory rules or executive instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of Doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent Doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused Doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the Doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a Doctor in Government service, qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinio n applying the Bolam Test to the facts collected in the investigation. A Doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the Investigating Officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.” 11. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra and the guidelines stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that it is obligatory on the part of the Investigating Agency to follow the guidelines given by the Apex Court in its letter and spirit. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra and the guidelines stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that it is obligatory on the part of the Investigating Agency to follow the guidelines given by the Apex Court in its letter and spirit. Therefore, in view of the guidelines enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is constrained to direct the present Investigating Agency namely the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ashok Nagar Range , T. Nagar, Chennai to obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a Doctor in Government Service qualified in that branch of Medical practice in respect of the allegation levelled against the Doctor (A2) and the Hospital authorities for the alleged medical negligence. It is also further made clear that the above said Officer namely, the Investigating Agency should obtain the medical opinion from the competent Doctor as stated above and complete the investigation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.