The Madras High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against MIOT Hospitals and its administrators by the relatives of eight of the 18 patients who had died when the hospital premises got inundated during the 2015 Chennai floods.
The prosecution had been initiated for the offence under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of Indian Penal Code.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar dismissed all eight quash petitions filed jointly by MIOT Hospitals, its founder P.V.A. Mohandas, chairperson Mallika Mohandas and Managing Director Prithvi Mohandas. “Considering the nature of allegations which require proof, this court is of the view that it is premature to hold that no criminal case is made out,” the judge said.
Though the petitioners had relied upon a Supreme Court verdict in which a criminal case booked against a doctor, for non-availability of oxygen cylinder in the hospital, was quashed, the judge said, that was a simple case of medical negligence and therefore that verdict could not be applied to the present case, where a high degree of negligence had been alleged.
The judge pointed out that, according to the eight private complainants, a majority of the 18 patients were accommodated in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at the hospital basement while the international patients were treated in the ICU on the eighth floor.
The flood warning was issued on November 28, 2015 and the hospital began flooding on December 1. Yet, the hospital failed to save the 18 lives by either shifting the patients requiring ICU care to other hospitals or by initiating other measures, the complainants alleged.
On the other hand, the senior counsel for the hospital placed reliance on a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and contended that the 2015 floods had occurred because of the failure of the State government to create new reservoirs and check dams to mitigate flood hazards.
The hospital could not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 304A of IPC merely because the flood water had entered the generator room and caused power failure resulting in the death of patients in the ICU, he contended.
Stating that a high degree of negligence must be proved for initiating prosecution under Section 304A IPC and that mere lack of care, which could at best incur a civil liability, would not be sufficient, the senior counsel urged the High Court to quash the proceedings. However, Justice Kumar said: “Whether the death of the patients was an ‘act of God’ or [because of] a simple lack of care or mere negligence or a high degree of negligence or recklessness are to be seen only in the trial on the basis of the evidence adduced before the trial Court… This court cannot enter upon the discussion merely on the basis of the submissions which require proof.”
