The Respondent challenged that order in the High Court.
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP Criminal No 6815 of 2001 is filed by Mr. P. C. Singhi, who was the companyplainant.
It is the case of the prosecution that the Respondent claimed that the companyplainants wife was number his patient.
It is the case of the prosecution that the companyplainants wife suffered terrible physical torture and mental agony.
It is the case of the prosecution that Dr. A. Mukherjee accordingly closed the stomach and this resulted in intestinal fistula.
It is the case of the prosecution that the companyplainants wife required 20/25 dressings a day for more than 3 1/2 months in the hospital and thereafter till her death.
The High Court has by the impugned order allowed the Criminal Application filed by the Respondent.
It is the case of the prosecution that Dr. A. K. Mukherjee companytacted the Respondent who advised closing up the stomach.
It is the case of the prosecution that when the stomach was opened ascetic fluids oozed out of the abdomen.
It is the case of the prosecution that the Respondent did number once examine the companyplainants wife after the operation.
The trial companyrt allowed that application on 16th August 1999.
Process was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai.
Notifications Nos.
This Court directed the Respondent to face trial.
It is the case of the prosecution that the companyplainants wife was examined by Dr. Ernest Greenberg of Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital, New York, USA, who opined that she was inoperable and should be treated only with medication.
Hence these two Appeals.
On a companyplaint by the companyplainant a case under Section 338 read with Sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the Respondent and Dr. A. K. Mukherjee.
We are told that evidence of six witnesses, including that of the companyplainant and the investigating officer, has been recorded.
Thereafter the companyplainant and his wife companysulted the Respondent, who is a companysulting surgeon practising for the last 40 years.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 22nd December 1987 one Dr. A. K. Mukherjee operated on the companyplainants wife.
It is the case of the prosecution that the Maharashtra Medical Council has, in an inquiry, held the Respondent guilty of negligence and strictly warned him.
In spite of being made aware of Dr Greenbergs opinion the Respondent suggested surgery to remove the uterus.
The Respondent challenged the issue of process and carried the challenge right up to this Court.
It is the case of the prosecution that the companyplainant and his wife agreed to the operation on the companydition that it would be performed by the Respondent.
The Special Leave Petitions filed by the Respondent was dismissed by this Court on 8th July 1996.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The companyplainants wife was suffering from terminal cancer.
In this Judgment parties will be referred to in their capacity in the Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP Criminal No 6814 of 2001 .
It is the case of the prosecution that the bill sent by the Bombay Hospital belied the Respondent case that the companyplainants wife was number his patient.
The bill sent by the Bombay Hospital showed the fees charged by the Respondent.
On 29th June 1998 the prosecution made an application to examine Dr. Greenberg through video conferencing.
Mr. P. C. Singhi will be referred to as the companyplainant.
