HC remands medical negligence case against head of Ashirwad Heart Hosp

High Court remands medical negligence case against Dr. Bhaskar P Shah to trial court due to inadequate consideration of evidence in death of Ramsinh Parmar.

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has remanded a medical negligence case against Dr. Bhaskar P Shah, head of Ashirwad Heart Hospital in Mumbai, back to the trial court in Vikhroli after it found that the trial court had inadequately addressed critical evidence and testimonies in its initial judgement acquitting Shah, necessitating a re-evaluation. The case, brought by Dr Herat Ramsinh Parmar, a gynaecologist, concerns the death of her father, Ramsinh Umedsinh Parmar, in 1993.

HT Image

Dr. Parmar’s father, a diabetic and hypertensive patient, was admitted to Ashirwad Heart Hospital on March 24, 1993, after experiencing symptoms of a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA). Dr Parmar observed that her father was perspiring and had difficulty balancing, among other symptoms. Cardiologist Dr Jitesh Desai and neurologist Dr V G Panchal diagnosed the condition and recommended ICU admission. Despite receiving care, Ramsinh Parmar’s condition deteriorated, and he passed away on March 26, 1993.

In the initial trial, the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court acquitted Dr Shah of negligence charges. The trial court’s judgment emphasised that several doctors, including Dr Shah, had examined and treated the patient, but no clear negligence was evident. The court noted that the deceased had long-standing health issues, and the medical efforts made were consistent with standard practices.

Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Dr. Parmar, argued that the trial court had failed to thoroughly consider substantial evidence, including testimonies and medical documents. He highlighted several acts of omission, such as the failure to hook the patient to a cardiac monitor, ignoring the history of stroke, and administering harmful drugs.

The counsel representing Dr Shah, contended that the trial court’s judgement was sound, emphasising the patient’s pre-existing conditions and the comprehensive care provided. He argued that the trial court rightly distinguished between civil and criminal liability, noting that mere dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes does not constitute criminal negligence.

Justice SM Modak, presiding over the appeal, found merit in Dr Parmar’s arguments. He noted that the trial court’s judgment lacked detailed examination of the available evidence, particularly the testimonies of the involved doctors and the documentary evidence provided by Dr. Parmar. Justice Modak stressed the necessity of a thorough evaluation to ensure a just outcome.

The High Court remanded the case to the trial court, instructing it to start from the stage of hearing arguments from both sides. The trial court has been directed to complete the arguments within a specified timeline: 15 days for each party to present their case and seven days for replies. The trial court is expected to deliver its judgement promptly thereafter.

Both parties are directed to appear before the trial court on July 22, 2024. The High Court has also instructed the Registrar to ensure the prompt transfer of all relevant records to the trial court to facilitate the proceedings.