CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 1 of 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on :12.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on :19.01.2026

+ CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 & CRL.M.A. 10046/2011

SANJEEVAN MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE .....Petitioner

versus

STATE & ANR .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicant : Mr. Gaurave Bhargava, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State

Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. K. Prasad, Ms. Shweta

Sinha & Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advs.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1.The present Application bearing CRL.M.A. No. 10046/2011 has

been filed by the Applicants (who are Respondent Nos. 2/ Dr. D.K.

Satsangi and Respondent No. 3/Mrs. Poonam Satsangi in Crl. M.C.

2358/2010 i.e. the original complainants) seeking recall/review of the

impugned judgment dated 11.02.2011 passed by this Court in Crl.

M.C. 2358/2010.

2.Vide the impugned Judgment dated 11.02.2011, this Court, in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), had allowed the Crl. M.C.

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 2 of 19

2358/2010 filed by the Non-Applicants/Petitioners andquashed the

criminal complaint instituted by the Applicants/Respondents, alleging

that their son/Rahul Satsangi had died due to medical negligence while

being treated at Petitioner No. 1/Sanjeevan Medical Research Centre,

Darya Ganj.

3.Succinctly stated, a complaint was preferred by the

Applicants/Complainants under section 156(3) of the CrPC. After

taking cognizance, considering that the allegations pertained to death

of their Son/Rahul Satsangi allegedly caused by medical negligence of

the accused doctors working with Petitioner No. 1 and due to

administration of antibiotics namely – azithromycin and levofloxacin

which caused a drug-allergic reaction leading to his death, the learned

MM directed the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences

(‘AIIMS’), to constitute a Medical Board comprising of doctors

specialized in the field to examine the matter and render its opinion on

whether the death of the Applicants’ son was attributable to

negligence on the part of the treating doctors.

4.However, before any opinion could be rendered by the Medical

Board constituted by AIIMS pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the

accused/Non-Applicants approached this Court under Section 482 of

the CrPC, assailing the order of cognizance dated 04.06.2010 by way

of the above Crl. M.C. No. 2358/2010.

5.It also transpires that parallelly, the Applicants/Respondents had

approached the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission (‘NCDRC’) with similar allegations seeking

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 3 of 19

compensation, whereby, vide order dated 30.09.2010, the learned

NCDRC had also directed the Director, AIIMS, to constitute a multi-

disciplinary Board of Doctors to furnish a prima facie opinion

regarding the alleged medical negligence.

6.Undisputedly, the Medical Board of AIIMS, comprising of 7

expert members, upon examination, submitted its report dated

26.10.2010, opining that there was no material to suggest any gross

negligence on the part of the treating doctors or the hospital. The

relevant extract is reproduced as under: -

“xxx xxx xxx

Following the deposition of Dr. Prem Aggrawal, the

board members carried forward the deliberations on

this matter and from the available facts, medical

records, etc. concluded as follows:

Late Mr. Rahul Satsangi was suffering from

Duchenne muscular Dystrophy

No documented medical evidence in the form

of previous medical reports especially

echocardiography report, past medical

records, etc is available to the board members

to know about the pre morbid cardio-

respiratory status of late Mr. Rahul Satsangi

as according to the complainant Dr. D K

Satsangi, they have been lost during the course

of shifting of their house.

The X-Ray chest of late Mr. Rahul Satsangi is

indicative of a patch of opacity and after

clinical correlation with case presentation, the

presenting condition of Late Mr. Rahul

Satsangi warranted treatment on the lines of

pneumonitis.

Cardiac involvement is known to occur in

patient with Duchenne's muscular dystrophy.

The literature does not suggest that

Levofloxacin and Azithromycin are

contraindicated in such cases. These drugs

can be administered to such patients under

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 4 of 19

controlled conditions following due

precautions.

Though medical records and nursing notes do

not clearly indicate that Azithromycin was

given as an infusion however, the time

mentioned for Azithromycin and next drug

administration suggest that it could have been

given over a period of 30 minutes.

The records also suggest that patient had an

acute worsening with shivering and cardio

respiratory arrest after the test dose of

Levofloxacin.

The sequence of events suggest the patient had

cardio respiratory arrest which could have

been due to an arrhythmia or drug reaction

following which the patient was shifted to ICU

where cardio respiratory resuscitation was

carried out. However, the patient could not be

revived and died in the ICU.

The board gave its final opinion as under:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT

THERE WAS ANY GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON

THE PART OF THE TREATING

DOCTORS/HOSPITAL IN THE TREATMENT

OF UTE Mr. RAHUL SATSANGI IN THE SAID

MATTER.”

(emphasis supplied)

7.The record further reveals that prior to filing the criminal

complaint, the Applicants had also approached the police in December

2009, seeking registration of an FIR. The concerned SHO, without

registering an FIR, sought the opinion of the Director of Health

Services, Government of NCT of Delhi, (‘DHS’) who, vide opinion

dated 17.02.2010, opined that prima facie no gross negligence,

rashness, or omission was involved in the treatment of the patient. The

relevant extract is reproduced as under: -

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 5 of 19

“ Sub: Enquiry in the case referred by office of the

Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District vide

File No. 600/ SO-A-DCP/CENTRAL DISTT.,

DELHI, dated 21-01-2010 regarding medical

opinion w.r.t. rashness / negligence / opinion.

A committee was constituted to scrutinize

the records regarding the complaint from the office

of DCP, Central District against Dr. Anupam, Dr.

Prem Aggarwal & Dr. Nusrat regarding medical

opinion with regard to rashness/negligence/omission

if any in the treatment of Mr. Rahul Satsangi

admitted at Sanjeevan Hospital on 24-10-2009 with

Dr. S. Bhattarcharjee, Director Health Services

– Chairman

Dr. L.C. Thakur, Director Prof. HOD

Neurology, GTB Hospital and UCMS - Expert

Member

Dr. S.V. Madhu, Prof. Medicine, GTB Hospital

and UCMS - Expert Member

The Committee met at 2: 00 o'clock on 17-02-2010

in the office of DHS.

The committee scrutinized all the relevant

documents and the file including the complaint,

statement of the doctors concerned as well as the

hospital records.

After scrutiny of all the relevant files/documents, it

appears that

•As per hospital records, Mr Rahul Satsangi, age

20 years, was patient of Duchenne Muscular

Dystrophy who presented to Dr. Anupam, a

qualified physician at Sanjeevan Hospital on 24-

10-2009 with complaints of fever and cough for

4 days duration.

•As per the records of the hospital, the physician

clinically examined the patient an ordered an X-

ray chest which showed left lower zone opacity

query consolidation.

•As per hospital records. Dr. Anupam after

evaluation of the patient on 24-10-2009

suspected lower respiratory tract infection

(pneumonia) and accordingly prescribed

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 6 of 19

antibiotics l.V. Azithromycin and l.V.

Levefloxacin after the test dose.

•As per the records of hospital, soon after the

administration of l.V. Levefloxacin, the patient

had chills and rigors with a fall of Blood

Pressure and was shifted to the ICU for further

management.

•As per the records of hospital, all the

resuscitative measures were carried out in the

ICU including temporary pacing and

consultation with the Sr. Cardiologist. The

patient however, could not be saved.

The Board is of the opinion that the treatment and

the management given to the patient was

appropriate and prima facie there is no gross

rashness/negligence/omission involved in the

treatment/management of the patient.”

(emphasis supplied)

8.Thereafter, the matter was referred by the Deputy

Commissioner of Police to the learned Delhi Medical Council

(‘DMC’) for its opinion. The Disciplinary Committee of the learned

DMC, consisting of six doctors, vide Order dated 01.10.2010 and

03.11.2010 observed that Dr. Anupam Jena (the main accused) had

“failed to exercise reasonable degree of knowledge” expected of an

ordinary prudent doctor and, accordingly, directed removal of his

name from the State Medical Register for a period of one month. The

relevant extracts of the report of the learned DMC are as under: -

“ XXX XXX XXX

In light of the above, the Disciplinary Committee make

the following observations: -

1)It is noted on examination of original x-ray

No. 304 dated 24.10.2009 of late Rahul that

radiologically there was no significant

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 7 of 19

evidence of pneumonia. In fact, it was

suggestive of cardiomegaly as was reported by

Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar. However, based on the

overall clinical assessment, in patient with

presence of a co-morbid condition i.e.

Duchenne

Muscular Dystrophy, Dr. Anupam Jena was

justified in making the provisional diagnosis

of pneumonia and admitting the patient in

the Hospital despite the absence of

radiological sign which may not be evident in

the early stage of pneumonia. To prescribe

I.V. Azithromycin and Levofloxacin as drugs

for treatment after test dose, can also not be

faulted as the same are the recommended

drugs for pneumonia. However, the

administration of test dose of aforementioned

drugs intravenously is not recommended and

should not have been prescribed in the patient

with a history of drug allergy.

2)It is noted from the nurses record

(management chart) of the said Hospital that

the patient was administered on 24.10.2009,

Inj. Azithromycin 500 mg I.V. at 2.30 pm and

test dose of Inj. Levofloxacin 0.1 ml I.V. was

given at 3 pm, subsequent to which the patient

had a severe drug reaction as is evident from

his having chills, rigors and restlessness. The

complication of drug reaction was countered

by administration of Inj. Efcorin, Inj. Avil, IV

DNS as per standard protocol. Unfortunately

the patient's condition worsened and in spite

of all resuscitative measures he could not be

revived and was declared dead at 5.30 pm

(24.10.2009). It is observed that the severe

drug reaction exacerbated the co-morbid

condition of the patient resulting in his death.

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 8 of 19

In light of the observations made hereinabove, it is

the decision of the Disciplinary Committee that Dr.

Anupam Jenafailed to exercise reasonable degree

of knowledge which was expected of an ordinary

prudent doctor, by prescribing administration of test

dose of antibiotics viz. Azithromycin and

levofloxacin intravenously contrary to standard

protocols and especially in a patient with a known

history of drug allergy. The Disciplinary Committee,

therefore, recommends that the name of Dr. Anupam

Jena (DMC registration No. 46628) be removed

from State Medical Register of Delhi Medical

Council for a period of one month.

The Decision of Delhi Medical Council holding the

above named doctor guilty of medical negligence is

final. However, the Order directing the removal of

name from the State Medical Register of Delhi

Medical Council shall come into effect after 30

days from date of this Order.”

(emphasis supplied)

9.The challenge to the above report by DMC by Dr. Anupam

Jena, before the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India

(‘MCl’), was dismissed on 18.05.2011, with the following

observations: -

“Subject: Appeal against order dated 03.11.2010

passed by Delhi Medical Council made by Dr.

Anupam Jena.

Sir, 1 am directed to inform you that the above

mentioned matter was considered by the Ethic:

Committee of the Council constituted by the Hon'ble

Board of Governors, at its meeting held on 10" May,

2011 and it was decided as under:-

"The Ethics Committee considered the appeal filed

by Dr. Anupam Jena against the Order passed by

Delhi Medical Council dated 03.11.2010. By the

said Order. Delhi Medical Council has held Dr.

Anupam Jenaguilty of professional misconduct

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 9 of 19

and has imposed punishment of removal of name of

Dr. Anupam Jena from the State Medical Register of

Delhi Medical Council for a period of one month.

We have perused the grounds of appeal on which the

order passed by Delhi Medical Council and have

gone through the relevant treatment records as well

the oral deposition made by both the parties on

5/4/2011. From the record it appears that Dr Jena

diagnosed the patient as a case of pneumonia and

prescribed the medicines ie. IV Azithromycin and IV

Levofloxacin, Patient's father had informed Dr Jena

bout patients history of various allergies and the fact

that he has multisystem complications due to his

original condition a Duchene Muscular Dystrophy.

On perusal of the papers the Ethics Committee

found that Dr. Anupam Jene had not exercised due

care and precaution while treating the patient

especially with a known history of drug allergy and

co-morbid condition. Dr Jena ought to have made

sure that in view of patients co morbidities

adequately trained personnel is available at the time

of giving test dose though he had prescribed the:

medicines correctly and in good faith. The

committee is of the opinion that allegation of

patients father, Dr Satsangi, that IV Azethromycin

was give as a bolus against the standard practice of

giving it as an infusion can not be substantiated

from the available records. The Ethics Committee

does not find any infirmity in the order passed by

Delhi Medical Council, therefore, the Ethics

Committee recommends the dismissal of the appeal

filed by Dr. Anupam Jena against the order of Delhi

Medical Council dated 03.11.2010."

(emphasis supplied)

10.The above captioned Petition seeking quashing was heard at

length. This Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2012,

took into consideration the opinion of the DHS dated 17.0.2010, the

report of AIIMS dated 26.10.2010, as well as the decision dated

03.11.2010 of the DMC (which affirmed the decision of the earlier

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 10 of 19

opinion dated 01.10.2010) and it was categorically observed that two

boards, one of DHS and one of AIIMS had given a clean chit to the

accused/Petitioners/Non-Applicants by observing that there is no gross

negligence/recklessness attributable to the treating doctors. Hence, the

Petition was allowed,the order of cognizance was set-aside and the

criminal proceedings were quashed.

11.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2011, the

Applicants/Respondents filed a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP

(Crl.) No. 4642/2011 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On

11.07.2011, the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach this

Court.

12.Subsequent to withdrawal of the SLP, the Applicants filed the

present application bearing CRL.M.A. No. 10046/2011 under Section

482 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the impugned judgment dated

11.02.2011.

13.At the initial stage, notice in the present application was issued

by this Court limited to the question of maintainability. The question

of maintainability was decided vide Order dated 03.02.2012 and it was

observed that the present Application should be disposed on merits.

14.I have perused the documents filed and material placed on

record.

15.Before addressing the grounds raised in the recall application, it

is necessary to reiterate the foundational reasoning which led this

Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC in the first

instance.

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 11 of 19

16.The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC is meant to prevent

abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. In cases

involving allegations of medical negligence, the Supreme Court has

consistently cautioned that criminal law must not be set in motion

lightly to prevent undue harassment of medical professionals.

17.It is no more res-integra that a complaint alleging criminal

medical negligence by doctors should not ordinarily set the criminal

law in motion, unless an independent opinion is sought. The Hon’ble

Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1,

while laying down guidelines for prosecution of doctors in the cases of

criminal medical negligence, had observed as under: -

“52. Statutory rules or executive instructions

incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed

and issued by the Government of India and/or the

State Governments in consultation with the Medical

Council of India. So long as it is not done, we

propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future

which should govern the prosecution of doctors for

offences of which criminal rashness or criminal

negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may

not be entertained unless the complainant has

produced prima facie evidence before the court in

the form of a credible opinion given by another

competent doctor to support the charge of rashness

or negligence on the part of the accused doctor.

The investigating officer should, before proceeding

against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act

or omission, obtain an independent and competent

medical opinion preferably from a doctor in

government service, qualified in that branch of

medical practice who can normally be expected to

give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying

the Bolam [(1957) 1 WLR 582 : (1957) 2 All ER

118 (QBD)] test to the facts collected in the

investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 12 of 19

negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner

(simply because a charge has been levelled against

him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering

the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless

the investigating officer feels satisfied that the

doctor proceeded against would not make himself

available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the

arrest may be withheld. ”

(emphasis supplied)

18.Further, in the case of Suresh Gupta vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of

Delhi and Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 422, Dr. Suresh Gupta, who was a

Plastic Surgeon by profession, made a wrong incision while

performing a minor procedure on the nasal cavity of the patient, due to

which the blood entered his respiratory canal and thereby, causing the

death of the patient. Consequently, criminal proceedings under Section

304A of the IPC, for causing death by negligence, were launched

against Dr. Gupta. However, the Apex Court, while relying on the

post-mortem report and the opinion of the three medical experts of the

Special Medical Board, observed that the negligence in 'not putting a

cuffed endotracheal tube of proper size in the nasal cavity, in a manner

so as to prevent asphyxiation, was not sufficient to impose criminal

liability on the doctor. It was observed that: -

“20. For fixing criminal liability on a doctor or

surgeon the standard of negligence required to be

proved should be so high as can be described as

"gross negligence" or recklessness". It is not

merely lack of necessary care, attention and skill.

The decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Adomako

(Supra) relied upon on behalf of the doctor

elucidates the said legal position and contains

following observations: - "Thus a doctor cannot be

held criminally responsible for patient's death

unless his negligence or incompetence showed

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 13 of 19

such disregard for life and safety of his patient as

to amount to a crime against the State."

21. Thus, when a patient agrees to go for medical

treatment or surgical operation, every careless act

of the medical man cannot be termed as 'criminal'. It

can be termed 'criminal' only when the medical men

exhibits a gross lack of competence or inaction and

wanton indifference to his patient's safety and which

is found to have arisen from gross ignorance or

gross negligence. Where a patient's death results

merely from error of judgment or an accident, no

criminal liability should be attached to it. Mere

inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate

care and caution might create civil liability but

would not suffice to hold him criminally liable.

22. This approach of the courts in the matter of

fixing criminal liability on the doctors, in the

course of medical treatment given by them to their

patients, is necessary so that the hazards of medical

men in medical profession being exposed to civil

liability, may not unreasonably extend to criminal

liability and expose them to risk of landing

themselves in prison for alleged criminal

negligence.”

(emphasis supplied)

19.Applying these settled principles that criminal liability of a

doctor arises only in cases of “gross negligence or recklessness”, and

not in cases of mere error of judgment or professional lapse, this Court

found that since two independent expert bodies, namely the DHS and

the AIIMS Medical Board, had opined that there was no gross

negligence attributable to the treating doctors, the criminal complaint,

if permitted to proceed, would amount to subjecting the

accused/Petitioners to a full-fledged criminal trial despite absence of

prima facie material meeting the threshold of “criminal negligence” as

per the settled law.

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 14 of 19

20.It was in this background that this Court exercised its inherent

powers to prevent abuse of the criminal process and quashed the

complaint.

21.At this juncture, before adverting to the merits of the recall

Application, it would be apposite to mention that a review is not an

appeal in disguise. The power of recall or review can be exercised

only where there exists anerror apparent on the face of the record, and

not where the Applicants/Respondents seeks a reappreciation of

evidence or a rehearing on merits.

22.The principal grievance of the Applicants is that this Court

wrongly discarded the findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the

learned DMC, which had found Dr. Anupam Jena guilty of “medical

negligence and misconduct”.

23.This submission proceeds on an erroneous assumption. The

impugned judgment dated 11.02.2011 does not discard the DMC

report and has addressed the same as under: -

“6. I have gone through the order of Medical

Council and the same is silent about the opinions

given by other two Boards and has not discussed

these opinions at all. The order also does not show

as to who, on behalf of Delhi Medical Council

considered the issue of Medical negligence of Dr.

Anupam. In any case, Delhi Medical Council has

given its own reasons which are contradictory to the

reasons given by the other two Boards.”

(emphasis supplied)

24.The emphasis placed by the Applicants on the decision of the

learned DMC dated 03.11.2010 to contend that “medical negligence”

having been recorded against Dr. Jena, which has been over-looked

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 15 of 19

and the criminal proceedings deserve to be revived, is wholly

misconceived.

25. A plain and contextual reading of the said decision of the

learned DMC reproduced in the preceding paragraphs makes it

manifest that the finding of “medical negligence” is confined to a

limited professional lapse in the mode of administration of a test dose

of antibiotics, and not a finding of gross negligence, recklessness or

rash conduct so as to attract criminal culpability. Significantly, the

Disciplinary Committee expressly held that the provisional diagnosis

of pneumonia, the decision to admit the patient, as well as the choice

of antibiotics, were all justified and in conformity with accepted

medical practice. The “medical negligence” recorded at the end

pertains only to deviation from standard protocol in administering a

test dose intravenously in a patient with a known history of drug

allergy, for which a minor disciplinary penalty of temporary removal

from the medical register for one month was imposed. Such a finding,

rooted in regulatory and professional standards, cannot be elevated to

the level of criminal negligence required under Section 304-A of the

IPC, when it is trite that every lapse or error of judgment by a medical

professional does not give rise to criminal prosecution, unless the

conduct complained of is so gross or culpable as to show a disregard

for life and safety.

26.It also cannot be lost sight of that the proceedings before the

learned DMC are disciplinary proceedings governed by the Delhi

Medical Council Act, 1977. The standard applied therein is materially

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 16 of 19

different from the standard required to prosecute a person for a

criminal offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. Finding of

professional misconduct or negligence in disciplinary proceedings

cannot automatically translate into criminal culpability and even

otherwise, the findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the learned

DMC, did not disclose the element of “gross negligence or

recklessness” by the accused Doctors, required to sustain criminal

prosecution for medical negligence. Thus, the decision of the learned

DMC, even if taken at its highest, does not dilute the basis of the

impugned judgment.

27.Further, this Court also finds no merit in the argument of the

Applicants that after passing of the impugned judgment the Applicants

had sought some information from the learned DMC, which in turn

had informed them that Dr. S. Bhattaeharjee, who had earlier as the

chairman of DHS and had opined that there is no “gross negligence”

in the treatment of Rahul Satsangi, himself was a member of the

learned DMC and had subsequently confirmed the decision of the

disciplinary committee of the learned DMC. At the cost of reiteration,

the opinions of the AIIMS and DHS boards bear no relation to

“misconduct” or disciplinary proceedings. Even assuming a common

expert member across panels, the initial view (absence of “gross

negligence” with respect to Section 304A of the IPC) and later

assessment (specifically with respect to “misconduct and medical

negligence” for disciplinary purposes) are neither contradictory, nor

does the latter withdraw the former.

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 17 of 19

28.The contention that the DMC being a statutory body, its opinion

ought to have been treated as conclusive, is also legally untenable. The

observations of the Medical Council cannot be binding upon the

criminal courts as the function of the criminal court is to

independently assess whether the ingredients of a criminal offence are

prima facie made out.

29.The Applicants further have alleged that this Court misread the

AIIMS report and wrongly relied upon the DHS report. A careful

reading of the judgment dated 11.02.2011 shows that the conclusions

of the AIIMS Medical Board have been faithfully recorded. The Board

unequivocally stated that there was no evidence of gross negligence on

the part of the treating doctors. The DHS Report similarly did not

attribute “gross negligence” to the accused doctors or the nursing

home.

30.Hence, this Court rightly declined to elevate one disciplinary

opinion passed by the learned DMC with respect to the disciplinary

misconduct and negligence, above the two expert medical opinions

rendered in the specific context of criminal proceedings and the issue

of “gross negligence” by the two independent boards constituted by

AIIMS and DHS.

31.Further, the allegations of manipulation or bias are completely

bald and unsupported. In any case, any allegations regarding the

procedural lapses in the AIIMS and DHS Boards cannot be examined

in recall proceedings as this Court cannot convert review jurisdiction

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 18 of 19

into a fact-finding inquiry into the functioning of expert medical

bodies.

32.It would also be pertinent to mention that during the pendency

of the present proceedings before this Hon'ble Court the complaint

(Consumer Complaint no. 22/2010) filed by the Applicants before the

NCDRC for award of compensation for alleged negligence too came

to be dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 01.04.2016 and no

negligence, much less gross negligence, was found attributable to the

accused doctors herein by the NCDRC.

33.Hence, there is nothing placed on record to reflect any infirmity

in the impugned judgment and no document has been brought forth to

show that any opinion with respect to “gross negligence” by the

accused doctors to attract Section 304A of the IPC, was not considered

while passing the impugned judgment.

34.No error apparent on the face of the record has been

demonstrated and in the opinion of this Court, the judgment dated

11.02.2011 reflects a reasoned, balanced, and legally sound exercise

of jurisdiction.

35.It emerges that the present application is, in substance, an

attempt to reargue the matter on merits, to reopen concluded issues,

and to substitute this Court’s judicial assessment with the Applicants’

subjective perception.

36.This Court is not unmindful of the profound anguish and

irreparable loss suffered by the Applicants on account of the untimely

demise of their young son. The pain of a bereaved parent is

CRL.M.C. 2358/2010 Page 19 of 19

immeasurable and evokes the deepest sympathy. However, while the

loss suffered by the Applicants/Respondents is tragic, the same by

itself cannot furnish a legal foundation to revive criminal proceedings

which, upon due consideration of the entire material, were found to be

an abuse of the process of law.

37.In view of the above discussion, the present Application seeking

recall/review of the judgment dated 11.02.2011 is dismissed on merits.

38.All pending applications stand disposed of.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

JANUARY 19, 2026

“SS”