Judgment : Vijay Lakshmi, J. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by Dr. P. Kumar against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh whereby learned court below has partly allowed two criminal revisions filed by opposite parties of this revision i.e. Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2000; Ram Gopal Verma Vs. Dr. P. Kumar and others and Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2000; State Vs. Dr. P. Kumar and others. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Some background facts in brief are that one Smt. Kamlesh, having 7 months pregnancy, due to some complications, was to be admitted to the Nursing Home run by the revisionist Dr. P. Kumar for pre-mature delivery. Looking into the circumstances, the revisionist summoned Dr. Tulika Pathak, a Gynaecologist Surgeon, and she opined for immediate operation. Thereafter Dr. Sanjay Bhargava, anesthetist was summoned who gave anaesthesia and operation was performed. A male under weight baby was born who was weighing only 1.6 kg. at the time of his birth. The baby had aspirated the meuconium or in simple words he had consumed faecal matter which went directly into his lungs. Immediately a child specialist Dr. Rajeev Singhal was called who continued his treatment but unfortunately the baby expired within 24 hours. The respondent no. 2 who is the brother of Smt. Kamlesh, lodged an F.I.R. against the doctors under Section 304-A I.P.C. A criminal case was registered and the matter was investigated. The investigation was later on transferred to C.B.C.I.D. which submitted charge-sheet against the revisionist Dr. P. Kumar and also against the lady doctor, the anesthetist and the child specialist. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and summoned all the doctors to face trial under Section 304-A of I.P.C. The doctors filed an objection against the summoning order of the Magistrate. Their application was allowed and all of them were discharged. Being aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate, the complainant Ram Gopal Verma preferred Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2000. The State also preferred Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2000 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 2.8.2002 partly allowed both the revisions and set aside the order of discharge passed by learned Magistrate in respect of Dr. P. Kumar only. The State also preferred Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2000 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 2.8.2002 partly allowed both the revisions and set aside the order of discharge passed by learned Magistrate in respect of Dr. P. Kumar only. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned lower revisional court Dr. P. Kumar has approached this Court challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 2.8.2002. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that even if the entire prosecution story is taken into consideration, no case is made out against the revisionist as he has nothing to do with the matter except that he was running the nursing home where the delivery took place. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has neither performed the caesarian operation nor has given anaesthesia nor has treated the new born baby. His only role is that he was running the nursing home where the baby was born. Placing reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the two landmark cases cited in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 (Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another) and (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 958 (Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq), learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a medical practitioner, faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence so he should not be prosecuted in every such case where due to critical condition a patient expires. In the case of Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (supra) the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines with regard to the cases of medical negligence and has issued direction that in such cases the matter should first be referred to a competent doctor or committee of doctors specialist in the relevant field and when such a doctor or committee reports that there is prima facie case of medical negligence, only then notice should be issued to the doctor or hospital concerned. Courts or consumer courts are not experts in medical science and therefore they should not substitute their own views over that of specialists. Courts or consumer courts are not experts in medical science and therefore they should not substitute their own views over that of specialists. The Supreme Court has also warned the police officers against arresting or harassing the doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters laid down in Jacob Mathew's case. Observing that the law is a watchdog and not a bloodhound, the Supreme Court has held that the doctors doing duty with reasonable care would not incur liability even if their treatment failed. Harm resulting from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment would not necessarily attract such liability. Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightaway liable for medical negligence. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this revision deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 2.8.2002 is set aside. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial court for compliance. ———————