Rajesh Gupta
Ahmadabad, May 11: Lot of Private Hospitals with league with team of Doctors are looting Govt by diagnosing trouble shooter diseases & doing treatments just to grab money on the risk of lives of innocents & if enquired with detailed investigations countless scams shall come out & one example can be seen below for which one cruel Doctor has been denied bail by the High Court?
The Gujarat High Court denied bail to a Doctor accused of persuading patients to undergo unnecessary angioplasty with the intention to grab monetary benefits under the PMJAY scheme.
The Court dismissed a regular bail Application filed by a Doctor (Applicant) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for offences punishable under Sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 340(1), 318, and 61 of the BNS.
The Court held that it was a systematic attempt by the Applicant to mint more money under the PMJAY scheme from the Government.
A Single Bench of Justice MR Mengdey remarked that the fact remains that seven patients were forced to undergo the procedure of angioplasty without their wish and without any need in some cases.
The material on record also suggests that no proper post operational care was taken and some of the patients were transferred to the general ward after the procedure
Learned Public Prosecutor is right in contending that this is not the case of simple medical negligence. In fact, it is a systematic attempt to mint more money under the PMJAY scheme from the Government.
The Bail was opposed on the contention that the Doctor had performed the procedure of angioplasty upon the patients who did not require the same. The 7 patients were allegedly made to undergo the procedure of angioplasty by the Doctor, only for him to grab the monetary benefits under the PMJAY scheme.
Because of the wrongful performance of the procedure, it was further alleged that two patients had unfortunately succumbed to untimely death.
he High Court noted, the patients in their respective statements have categorically stated that when they expressed their disinclination to the present applicant, there was heavy persuasion by the present applicant for undergoing the procedure by showing the threat of their death.
The involvement of the present Doctor in the present offence cannot be ruled out at this stage, since the material available on record indicates a strong prima facie case against the present applicant.
The present applicant has played a pivotal role in the present offence as in the first place it was the present applicant who had performed the procedure of angioplasty on the patients in question and as observed herein above, in some cases, though not required,” the Bench further noted.
Consequently, the Court ordered that by considering all these aspects, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The present Application is dismissed.
Titled: Prashant v. State Of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:26222)
|