By Rajesh Pandey
In a strongly worded judgment, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a 2008 criminal case against a doctor accused of gross medical negligence,
observing that many private hospitals and nursing homes today treat patients as little more than “guinea pigs or ATMs,” aiming only to extract money rather than provide ethical medical care.
The petition was filed by Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai, a private practitioner based in Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, who had been facing criminal charges under an FIR registered on July 29, 2007.
The FIR alleged that Rai delayed a critical surgery on a pregnant woman by over five hours due to the absence of an anaesthetist, resulting in the death of the unborn child.
Furthermore, when the patient’s family raised objections, they were allegedly assaulted by staff and associates of the doctor. The family also accused Rai of demanding an additional ₹10,000 after already collecting ₹8,700, and of refusing to issue a discharge slip.
Justice Prashant Kumar of the High Court, while rejecting Dr. Rai’s plea, made stinging observations on the commodification of healthcare by some in the medical profession. He stated:
“Any medical professional who carries out his profession with due diligence and caution has to be protected, but certainly not those doctors who have opened nursing homes without proper facilities, doctors, and infrastructure, and entice patients just to extract money out of them.”
The court’s statement reflects growing public concern over how several private hospitals and clinics across India have been exploiting the poor and desperate, operating with minimal oversight and turning health crises into opportunities for profit.
From unjustified surgeries to inflated medical bills, stories of exploitation have become disturbingly common, especially in rural and semi-urban areas. Despite the existence of regulatory frameworks, weak enforcement and corruption often allow such unethical practices to flourish unchecked.
During the hearing, Dr. Rai’s counsel argued that the doctor held the requisite qualifications and referred to a Medical Board report, which supposedly found no medical negligence.
However, opposing counsel—including the lawyer for the complainant and the state government—countered that the patient had been stable at the time of admission, and that the lack of an anaesthetist at the facility directly led to the delay and tragic outcome.
In assessing the case, the High Court referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments in Dr. Suresh Gupta vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004) and Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005), which established that criminal liability for medical negligence arises only when a doctor fails to exercise the level of care expected from an ordinarily competent medical professional.
However, the court concluded that the facts on record indicated mala fide intent and that Dr. Rai did not meet the standard of care expected in the circumstances. It held that:
“Criminal liability occurs if ordinary care is not taken by a doctor while treating the patient. The present case clearly shows the mala fide intention of the applicant in cheating the patient.”