Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 969 (GUJ)

Kartik Jashubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2025-09-03

M.R.MENGDEY

body2025
ORDER : M. R. MENGDEY, J. 1. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11191020240478 of 2024 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 105 , 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 318 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita . 2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sudhir Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah has submitted that in the present offence, investigation is over and a charge-sheet has been filed. The F.I.R. in the present offence was lodged on 10 th November, 2024 and the applicant herein was admittedly not present in India at the time of registration of an offence nor the applicant was present in India when the medical camp was organised at Village Borisana, Taluka Kadi. The applicant herein is not a qualified doctor and therefore, in no case the applicant could have advised any of the patients to undergo any procedure related to heart. He has further submitted that as per the case of prosecution, in the month of November, 2024, the medical camp was organised at Village Borisana by the Khyati Hospital and 89 villagers had attended the said camp and out of them, 19 people were called to Khyati Hospital at Ahmedabad on the next date for further examination. Accordingly, further examination was carried out qua those 19 patients and upon angiography investigation, it was found out all those 19 people, 7 people were required to undergo angioplasty and the said procedure was carried out by the co-accused Dr. Prashant Vajirani. It is the case of prosecution that the consent of relatives of the patients was not obtained for carrying out the procedure of angioplasty and due care was not taken after they underwent surgery in question. Since as stated herein-above, the applicant was not present in India at the relevant time, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the alleged lapses found in the hospital. On the fateful day, as per the case of prosecution, the angioplasty was carried out on patients, who did not require to undergo any such procedure at all and for this act, the applicant cannot be held responsible being a Chairman of the hospital. On the fateful day, as per the case of prosecution, the angioplasty was carried out on patients, who did not require to undergo any such procedure at all and for this act, the applicant cannot be held responsible being a Chairman of the hospital. He has further submitted that the other co-accused who are responsible for day to day administration of the hospital, have been considered for grant of bail by this Court. The allegations against the present applicant as well as the other co-accused who have been considered for grant of bail are similar. There is nothing on record to indicate that it was the present applicant, who insisted upon the other co-accused and staff of the hospital to perform procedures of angiography and angioplasty on more and more patients, even if, they did not require any such procedure. He has further submitted that the prosecution seeks to rely upon the statement of one Mr. Jeet Harshadbhai Brahmbhatt, who is a disgruntled employee of the hospital. From his statement itself it appears that there was some dispute as regards payment of his salary between the hospital and himself and therefore, the statement of this witness does not appear to be reliable. He has further submitted that the present applicant may have attended meetings of Board of Director of Hospital being a Chairman and simply because he had attended those meetings, he could not be held responsible for the present offence. He has further submitted that it is the case of prosecution that 90% of revenue of the hospital was generated through PMJAY Scheme. However, the Chartered Accountant engaged by the Investigating Agency has submitted a report to the Investigating Officer after conducting forensic audit of the account of the hospital and the report so submitted by Chartered Accountant indicates that only 26% of revenue of hospital was generated through PMJAY Scheme. The hospital was also running activities from which other income was generated and therefore, there was no need for the hospital to depend upon the PMJAY Scheme only for generation of its revenue. He has further submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the applicant herein had received some financial benefits from the hospital. The hospital was also running activities from which other income was generated and therefore, there was no need for the hospital to depend upon the PMJAY Scheme only for generation of its revenue. He has further submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the applicant herein had received some financial benefits from the hospital. In fact, the applicant himself had invested a sizable amount in the hospital and for having invested the said amount in the hospital, he was receiving his returns on those investments on a regular basis. He has further submitted that even if, the case of the prosecution is accepted against the present applicant, the only role attributed to the present applicant is to the effect that he had insisted upon the staff of the hospital to bring more and more patients to the hospital. This by itself cannot be said to be an offence. He has, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave has opposed the grant of present application inter alia contending that the applicant being a Chairman of the hospital is the main accused in the present offence. This Court had dismissed the bail application filed by the other co-accused Mr. Prashant Vajirani and order of this Court has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He has further submitted that the doctors of the hospital were paid a fixed salary for performing their duties and therefore, they would not have any interest in performing the procedure of angioplasty on more and more patients. It was the applicant, who was Chairman of the hospital, had insisted upon the doctors and other staff of the hospital to perform the procedure of angiography and angioplasty upon as many patients as possible. He has further submitted that the witness Dr. Jeet Brahmbhatt in his statement has categorically stated that the applicant herein had given targets to the other doctors and staff of the hospital to bring more and more patients for treatment to the hospital. He has further submitted that the witness Dr. Jeet Brahmbhatt in his statement has categorically stated that the applicant herein had given targets to the other doctors and staff of the hospital to bring more and more patients for treatment to the hospital. This witness has also stated in his statement that when he was working with the Khayaty Hospital, he was performing the procedure of angiography and angioplasty only in those cases where it was clinically required and therefore, number of procedure performed in the hospital had gone down and because of the same, his salary had been withheld upon instruction of the applicant and then, the applicant had insisted upon him to perform more and more procedure of angiography and angioplasty. He has further submitted that the co-accused who have been considered for grant of bail were acting upon instruction of the present applicant and therefore, the role played by the present applicant cannot be equated to the role attributed to the other co-accused, who have been considered for grant of bail. He has further submitted that the allegations against the applicant, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations made against the applicant, no discretion should be exercised.. 4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The present is a case of classic example of the abuse of the scheme floated by the Government for the welfare of the general public. The PMJAY scheme has been in place to provide quality medical treatment to the public at large at a minimal cost. The expenses for the treatment of the patients under the PMJAY scheme is borne by the Government and the same is reimbursed to the hospital concerned by the Government. It is this scheme which has been allegedly misused in the present case for fulfilling materialistic ambitions of a few. 6. In the present case, the hospital in question had organized a medical camp at Borisana village on 10.11.2024, which was attended by 89 persons and those 89 persons were examined by the Doctors who were present at the camp. Out of them 19 patients were suspected to be suffering from heart related conditions and therefore, they were asked to come to Khyati Hospital on the next day. Out of them 19 patients were suspected to be suffering from heart related conditions and therefore, they were asked to come to Khyati Hospital on the next day. Accordingly, those 19 persons had appeared at the Khyati Hospital at Ahmedabad where they were again examined and procedures of cardiogram and angiography were performed upon them. Out of those 19 patients, 7 patients were advised to undergo the procedure of angioplasty, as they were found to be having blockages in the arteries to the extent of 80-90%. 6.1 In this regard, the statements of few patients who had undergone the procedure of angioplasty requires consideration. One Bachubhai Govaji Barot in his statement dated 16.11.2024 has stated that he had attended the medical camp on 10.11.2024 only with an intention of body check-up. He was having no complaints with regard to his health. His blood- pressure was checked at the camp and his cardiogram was taken and the Doctor at the camp had informed him that his one artery was blocked. Therefore, he was asked to come to Khyati Hospital on the next day with his MAA Card. He went to Khyati Hospital on 11.11.2024, where different tests were carried out and his thumb impressions were obtained on one form. Thereafter he was taken to the operation theatre and the procedure of angioplasty was performed upon him without informing his relatives. Thereafter, he was taken to U.N.Mehta Institute for Cardiology & Research Centre for check-up where he was informed after his check-up that one stent is inserted in his body. It was only then he came to know about the stent having been inserted in his body. 6.1.1 In his further statement dated 4.1.2025, he mentioned that the procedure of angiography was carried out without his consent. After the angiography Dr. Prashant Vazirani informed him that his arteries were blocked and asked him to undergo the procedure of angioplasty, to which he had denied. Despite the same, the procedure was performed upon him. He was persuaded by saying that he was not required to incur any expense for the same and it would take only 10 minutes for performance of the procedure. He further stated that despite he having denied, Dr. Prashant Vazirani had inserted stent in his body. Despite the same, the procedure was performed upon him. He was persuaded by saying that he was not required to incur any expense for the same and it would take only 10 minutes for performance of the procedure. He further stated that despite he having denied, Dr. Prashant Vazirani had inserted stent in his body. 6.2 Another witness namely Dineshbhai Sarjubhai Sadhu in his statement dated 16.11.2024 has stated that he was suffering from stomach related issues and for the check-up of the same he had attended the medical camp at the village. Doctor present at the camp had checked his Blood Pressure and had also taken his cardiogram. He was asked whether he possessed MAA Card or not, to which he had replied in the affirmative. Thereafter he was asked to come to Khyati Hospital on the next day. Therefore, he had gone to Khyati Hospital on the next day, where his thumb impressions were obtained on documents and thereafter, he was taken to operation theatre. The procedure of cardiogram and angiography was performed upon him without informing his relatives and thereafter he was informed that since his arteries were blocked, stent was required to be inserted for opening the blockage. He informed the Doctor that he had come for treatment for his stomach related problems. Doctor in turn informed him not to worry and the procedure will last only five minutes. He thereafter inserted the stent without his consent. After the procedure, he was shifted to general ward, where nobody came for his check-up, nor any medicines were given to him. Thereafter he was taken to U.N.Mehta Institute for Cardiology & Research Centre for check-up where he was informed that stent was inserted in his heart. 6.2.1 In his further statement dated 4.1.2025 he has stated that Doctor Prashant Vazirani had operated him for angioplasty and prior thereto it was informed that he was having serious heart problems and the angiography result shows blockages in two arteries and that if he did not undergo angioplasty on urgent basis, there was likelihood of him suffering a cardiac arrest and he may also die. The witness had informed Dr. Prashant Vazirani that he was not having any problem related to heart. He was only suffering from constipation. The witness had informed Dr. Prashant Vazirani that he was not having any problem related to heart. He was only suffering from constipation. 6.3 One witness Kantaben Shambhubhai Prajapati in her statement dated 16.11.2024 had stated that she had attended the camp on 10.11.2024 with a complaint of knee pain and skin related issues. The doctor present at the camp had checked her Blood Pressure and had taken her cardiogram and had informed her that she was having heart related problem. She informed Doctor that she was working as a labourer and had never experienced any pain in her chest, so how she can be suffering from any heart problem. Doctor, however asked her to come to Khyati Hospital on 11.11.2024. She, accordingly, attended the hospital on 11.11.2024, where she was taken to the Operation Theatre and she was informed by the doctor that her one artery was blocked and stent was required to be inserted for removal of the said blockage, which would only take 20 minutes. 6.3.1 In her further statement dated 4.1.2025, she has stated that Doctor Prashant Vazirani informed her that she was having more problems in her heart and therefore she was required to undergo angiography. Dr. Prashant Vazirani informed her that she was also having respiratory problems and therefore angioplasty was necessary for which she was not required to spend any money. Thereafter Dr. Prashant Vazirani performed angiography upon her and informed her that one artery was blocked and if the angioplasty was not performed immediately, there is a possibility of her death due to sudden cardiac arrest. 6.4 Witness Kokilaben Kanubhai Patel in her statements dated 16.11.2024 and 4.1.2025 stated that she had attended the camp with a complaint of pain in her legs as well as her hands. After the routine check-up, she was informed that her cardiogram report indicated that she was having some respiratory issues and was also having diabetes. She was asked whether she was having MAA Card and since she was having one, she was asked to attend the hospital on 11.11.2024 and accordingly, she had attended the hospital on the next day, where procedure of cardiogram and angiography were performed upon her and she was informed that she was having no health problem. Thereafter, she further states that Dr. Thereafter, she further states that Dr. Prashant Vazirani and other members of the medical team had heavily insisted upon her to undergo the procedure of angiography. She was informed that would not have to spend any money for that. 6.5 One Popatbhai Ramabhai Raval in his statements dated 16.11.2024 and 4.1.2025 has stated that he had attended the hospital on 11.11.2024, his cardiogram and angiography were done by Dr. Prashant Vazirani and he was informed that his angiography report indicated heart problem and that his arteries were blocked and therefore, angioplasty was required to be performed on immediate basis, failing which there was a risk of heart attack and resultantly, his death. He has stated that there was persuasion by Dr. Prashant Vazirani and other accused persons for angioplasty. 6.7 Witness Dashrathbhai Lalbhai Patel has stated in his statement that he was suffering from muscle pain and therefore had attended the medical camp where, after his examination he was told to come to Khyati Hospital on the next day with his Aadhar Card and other documents. He accordingly attended Khyati Hospital on the next day and his cardiogram and angiography were done by Dr. Prashant Vazirani and he was informed by the said Doctor that his arteries were blocked which needed to be cleaned and therefore, stent was required to be inserted for the same. 7. The statements of these witnesses indicate that some of the witnesses were having no complaints with regard to any heart related ailments and they had attended the camp at Borisana village with the complaints which had nothing to do with heart and those complaints were trivial in nature. However, they were wrongfully advised to undergo cardiogram and angiography. The witnesses have categorically stated that having expressed their desire not to undergo any procedure, they were heavily persuaded by the present applicant to undergo the procedure of angioplasty or else they were facing the risk of their death. 8. Witness Bharatbhai Nagarbhai Motibhai Senma, who is son of the deceased Nagarbhai Motibhai Senma, in his statement has categorically stated that he had visited Khyati Hospital on 11.11.2024 after his father had died and though his father had already died, he was put on ventilator. He was also informed by the staff of the hospital that his father had three blockages in his arteries and he was facing serious conditions. 8.1 One witness Dr. He was also informed by the staff of the hospital that his father had three blockages in his arteries and he was facing serious conditions. 8.1 One witness Dr. Minal Abhimanyu Maheshwari in her statement dated 22.11.2024 has stated that she had attended the medical camp at Borisana village as a junior doctor and her duty was to check the history of the patients who attended the camp. She was shown the forms of 19 patients who attended the medical camp, upon seeing those forms, she stated that they were the history of forms of the patients which were filled by them at the Borisana village camp and Dr. Ajaysinh Vaghela had written his opinion thereon. She further stated that those history forms had been altered by the hospital and the opinion of 2DECHO and cardio reference was added subsequently. These facts indicate that the history forms which were filled at the medical camp at village Borisana, were altered and the advice for some tests were added subsequently. The material on record indicates that after the death of two patients, an inquiry was ordered by the Government on the issue and the applicant and the other co-accused and the other office bearers were called by the inquiring authority with the relevant material and it appears that at that stage these records were manipulated. 9. The material on record indicates that the investigation officer had sought opinion as regards the reports of all the patients and the requirements for performance of any procedure upon them from U.N.Mehta Institute for Cardiology & Research Centre. The report given by U.N.Mehta Institute for Cardiology & Research Centre indicates that the patient Dashrathbhai Patel had undergone stenting with one stent for his lesion, which was not required as per their finding. 9.1 Qua Rameshbhai Pranbhai Patel, it is mentioned that as per the angiography report and diagram, proximal LAD has been shown as having 90% stenosis which is reasonable. The report mentions proximal RCA 80% lesion which as per our opinion is 50% only and does not require stenting. The angiographic report advises stenting to LAD and RCA while as per our opinion, only LAD stenting was required. A single consent form has been used for coronary angiogram and coronary angioplasty. The patient underwent stenting to LAD and RCA (1 stent in LAD and 1 in RCA). The angiographic report advises stenting to LAD and RCA while as per our opinion, only LAD stenting was required. A single consent form has been used for coronary angiogram and coronary angioplasty. The patient underwent stenting to LAD and RCA (1 stent in LAD and 1 in RCA). This opinion from the expert body indicates that the patient in question required only one stent to be inserted. However, two stents were inserted in his body unnecessarily. 9.2 Qua patient Kantibhai Babaldas Patel it is mentioned that the report mentioned 80% stenosis in RCA which is incorrect. The angiographic advice should have been medical management while the report mentions stenting to RCA, which indicates that as per the expert body, no stenting was required to be inserted in the case of this patient and the condition was required to be managed medically i.e. with medicines. Despite the same, the procedure of angioplasty was wrongfully advised. 9.3 In the case of patient Kantaben Shambhubhai Prajapati, it is mentioned that angiography report and diagram show 90% stenosis in proximal LAD which is incorrect. She was advised and she underwent stenting to LAD which was incorrect. The patient was directly subjected to stenting for LAD. 9.4 Qua Maheshbhai Girdharbhai Barot, who in the present case had died after the performance of angioplasty, it is mentioned a proper indication for coronary angiogram or coronary angioplasty was not established or mentioned. The consent of relative of the patient was not taken prior to the procedure. The discrepancy was noted in CAG report. The report mentions mid LCX 80% stenosis while in angiography video there is 30-40% disease in OM branch which is considered as non-critical. The report mentioned 90% stenosis in RCA while the review of angiogram reveals 30-40% which ids considered as non-critical. The patient underwent stenting to LCX (1 stent) and RCA (1 stent). There is no post procedure ECG attached with the file. No post procedure cardiologist note could be found. This indicates that the complications which were found in the case of deceased Maheshbhai were non-critical and therefore, there was no need of performance of any angioplasty. 9.5 In the case of deceased Nagarbhai Motibhai Senma the report indicates that a proper indication for coronary angiogram or coronary angioplasty was not established or mentioned. The angiography report shows a 90% stenosis in proximal and mid LAD. 9.5 In the case of deceased Nagarbhai Motibhai Senma the report indicates that a proper indication for coronary angiogram or coronary angioplasty was not established or mentioned. The angiography report shows a 90% stenosis in proximal and mid LAD. But the angiogram video suggests a stenosis of 80% in mid LAD and 50% in proximal LAD. The angiography diagram shows a 90% stenosis in RCA. The angiography report does not explicitly mention the percentage of blockage in the RCA. The angiography video does not show any significant blockage in the RCA. But the advice on the angiography report says PTCA to LAD and staged PTCA to RCA. The patient underwent stenting to LAD (2 stents). The report further indicates that no proper evaluation was done after patient’s condition deteriorated. The manipulation of time has been observed on CPR notes. 9.6 With regard to patient Dineshbhai Sarjubjai Sadhu the report indicates that the patient had underwent stenting to RCA with two stents. The lesion could have been covered with a single long stent, instead two short stents were implanted which was inappropriate as per opinion. 10. The present applicant was the Chairman of the hospital and was holding 51% of share in the said hospital. From the material available on record, it appears that there was standing instruction issued by the present applicant to the staff of the hospital to bring more and more patients to the hospital and it was insistence on the part of the applicant that number of procedure of angiography and angioplasty performed in the hospital should be increased. From the discussion made herein- above, it is clear that the procedure of angiography and angioplasty were also performed on the patients, who did not at all have any complaint regarding any heart ailment and were not required to undergo any such procedure. The statement of Dr.Jeet Brahmbhatt is required to be considered at this stage. He in his statement has stated that from 2021 to 15.01.2024, he was working as a consulting doctor at Khyati Hospital and he had given his services as a full time cardiologist with the Khyati Hospital from 16.01.2024 to 27.09.2024 and he had put some conditions before he started services as full time cardiologist with the Khyati Hospital. He in his statement has stated that from 2021 to 15.01.2024, he was working as a consulting doctor at Khyati Hospital and he had given his services as a full time cardiologist with the Khyati Hospital from 16.01.2024 to 27.09.2024 and he had put some conditions before he started services as full time cardiologist with the Khyati Hospital. As per the understanding between himself and Khyati Hospital while working as full time Cardiologist with the Khyati Hospital, the applicant was not supposed to work for any other hospital and similarly, the Khyati Hospital also could not call any other cardiologist to the hospital. Despite the aforesaid understanding between the parties, it was noticed by said Dr. Jeet Brahmbhatt when he was working with the Khyati Hospital, the services of the other doctors were engaged by the Khyati Hospital and the code of Dr. Jeet Brahmbhatt was used by those doctors for performing procedure of angiography and angioplasty. He has also stated in his statement that he was performing angiography and angioplasty only on such patients, who actually required such procedure and therefore, number of such procedure in the Khyati Hospital had dwindled which was not liked by the present applicant being a Chairman of the hospital and because of the same, his salary was also withheld at the instance of the present applicant. He had, therefore, inquired with the management of the hospital as regards withholding his salary and he was asked to meet the present applicant. He, therefore, met the present applicant and in the said meeting, the applicant had informed him that because he was not performing procedure of angiography and angioplasty on patients, who were referred from camp, the number of such procedure had diminished and because of the same, his salary was withheld and his salary would be released only if the said Dr. Jeet Brahmbhatt to start performing more and more procedures of angiography and angioplasty. He has also stated in his statement that he was constantly pressurized by the present applicant and other officials of the hospital for admitting more and more patients in the hospital for angiography and angioplasty. He has further stated in his statement that he was informed by co-accused Mr. He has also stated in his statement that he was constantly pressurized by the present applicant and other officials of the hospital for admitting more and more patients in the hospital for angiography and angioplasty. He has further stated in his statement that he was informed by co-accused Mr. Chirag Rajput that the number of procedure of angiography and angioplasty performed in the Khyati Hospital had diminished and therefore, it was conveyed by the present applicant that those numbers will have to be increased. The witness thereafter showed the accounts of the hospital and he was informed that the Chairman of the hospital i.e. present applicant wanted to start a new hospital at Naroda for which loan was applied to HDFC Bank and for the said purpose more and more patients were required to be admitted to the hospital. 11. The statement of Toralben Goswami also requires reference at this stage who in her statement has categorically stated that the present applicant used to continuously pressurize the Director Mr. Chirag Rajput and the managing team for bringing more and more patients to the hospital and in turn, Mr. Chirag Rajput used to pressurise the managing team and practicing doctors to refer more and more patients to the Khyati Hospital and because of pressure upon Mr. Chirag Rajput and other employees of the hospital, the patients were instructed to undergo a procedure of angiography and angioplasty and they were informed that if they did not undergo such procedure, they were likely to suffer heart attack which may result into their death. 12. From these facts, it emerges that it was the present applicant, who had insisted to bring more and more patients to the hospital and instructed to increase the number of procedures of angiography and angioplasty performed at Khyati Hospital at any cost. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. The application is dismissed.