The said fact is reflected in the whole gamut of the judgment.
M 25733 of 2011 before the High Court for quashing the companyplaint Case No.7506/09/11.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh, on 13.6.2008 sent the companyplaint for registration as it was under Section 156 3 Cr.
Aggrieved by the summoning order, as already stated, the Appellants preferred Crl.
Petition No.17013 of 2008 before the Punjab Haryana High Court.
P.C., but requested that the companyplaint be treated as under Section 202 Cr.
Review Petition was allowed by the High Court vide its order dated 11.2.2013, without numberice to the appellants.
She was admitted in the ICU by Dr. Jayant Banerjee and was attended by doctors of the hospital.
The Medical Board met on 3.10.2006 and, after examining the companyplaint as well as the companyments of the doctors, passed an order on the same date exonerating Dr. Jayant Banerjee holding that proper procedure was followed and there was numbergross negligence on the part of the hospital authorities or the Doctors.
On a total hospital bill of Rs.1,01,858/ a sum of Rs.30,000/ was paid and, for rest of the amount, a cheque was issued by Respondent No.1, husband of the patient.
The Appellants herein are in the management of a hospital named, INSCOL Multispecialty Hospital, Chandigarh.
P.C. The said order was challenged by the Appellants by filing Crl.
According to the Appellants, this annoyed Respondent No.1 and a companyplaint was filed against the doctors of the hospital before the Punjab Medical Council.
No.7776 of 2013 in Crl.
Respondent No.1, after a lapse of two years, on 9.6.2008, filed a companyplaint under Section 156 3 Cr.
Thereafter, the cheque was presented twice on 12.11.2005 as well as on 16.11.2005 but, on both occasions, the cheque was dishonoured.
Later, the learned Single Judge also opined as follows The hospital authorities had employed unqualified doctors in ICU which resulted into death of Mrs. Arora in spite of best efforts for shifting to other hospital, like Fortis and PGI.
P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, UT Chandigarh for registration of FIR against the Appellants for the companymission of offence under various sections, including Section 15 2 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
The High Court vide its order dated 19.2.2009 quashed the FIR by granting liberty to Respondent No.1 to approach the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh.
Ultimately, she died.
Later, a legal numberice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was issued to Respondent No.1 claiming the cheque amount.
Those orders, as already indicated, are under challenge in these appeals.
M 25733 of 2011, requesting the Court to carry out the companyrection of the judgment praying that the word death or died be stated to be read as brink of death.
On 9.8.2005, the cheque was presented by the bankers of the hospital, but the same was dishonoured, which fact was brought to the numberice of Respondent No.1 by the hospital authorities.
Later, she was discharged from the hospital on 2.8.2005 on the request of son of Respondent No.1.
In one portion of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has stated as follows The companydition of Mrs. Arora extremely deteriorated and she had to remain hospitalized in ICU of Fortis Hospital for about 2 months and thereafter, she was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh, where she remained admitted for one month.
S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
The Appellants herein approached the High Court of Punjab Haryana under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for short Cr.
P.C. for quashing companyplaint Case No.7506/09/11 dated 9.6.2008 and the summoning order 26.7.2011 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class , Chandigarh.
Later, Respondent No.1 filed an application being Crl.
P.C. The learned Magistrate, entertaining the said request, passed the order dated 26.7.2011 and summoned the Appellants to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/ 326/120 B IPC and under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act.
On 1.8.2005, the wife of Respondent No.1, by name, Inderjeet Arora, approached Dr. Jayant Banerjee and, on his advice, she was referred to the above mentioned hospital.
The entire approach of the learned Single Judge while entering a finding on the two questions framed was that due to medical negligence, the patient died.
