I get umpteen number of cases where a doctor after a medical accident has been pressurized to compromise by paying some money. The circumstances at that time usually involving a mob and sometimes the police are such that the doctor considers the 2-5 lacs given as well spent. Some doctors also get an agreement made up roughly stating the compromise but most do not. This payment made does not prevent them from having a compensation claim made against them in consumer court later, which is when I am approached for guidance. In fact some of these complaints made before consumer courts also contain a copy of the agreement made as “proof of negligence” . Yes there may be many incidents where payment is made and who do not go to court and those we will never know about.

However ,the harassment of a doctor in cases of alleged medical negligence starts from the day the incident occurs, notice is received, police summons are brought to him, or state medical council calls him for explanation and inquiry. The process of, repeated appearances in court or before inquiry committee, visits to police station besides the preparatory conferences with advocates, researching medical literature for relevant data takes time, energy, peace of mind and of course lots of money. Irrespective of the fact that the result of the legal process may be in his favour after 10 years on an average that such a case takes for conclusion, the added cost in terms of physical and mental health of the doctor is incalculable. The financial losses due to loss of reputation due to adverse publicity generated and lapped up by the ever obliging press is never compensated. So doctors frequently succumb to the ubiquitous advise of “well wishers” to settle the matter.

Consumer courts usually will close a complaint once presented with evidence of a compromise and order accordingly. However there is the issue whether an FIR once lodged under non compoundable sections of IPC can be quashed by High court under article 320 / 482 CrPC or 226 of the constitution keeping in view compromise between parties. Before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society (Goldquest India Pvt ltd vs State of Tamil Nadu Supreme Court Sept 8 , 2014). The issue then whether a complaint filed and FIR lodged under Section 304 (A) & 304 of IPC can be quashed by High Court following a compromise between parties will depend on facts and circumstances of individual cases and may not be automatic.

High courts in exercise of their powers can and do quash orders of State Medical Commission once evidence of mutual compromise is presented before it (Dr Leela Rao DGO,MD vs Karnataka Medical Council Karnataka High Court 12th Feb 2018).

The question then whether or not to pay and settle initially becomes very complex and difficult to answer. The answer will depend on individual case, type of persons one is dealing with, gravity of mishap and so on so forth. Though these issues are important but even death in an elderly may not be as problematic to handle as amputation of 2 fingers in an infant following compartment syndrome due to IV fluid. Keeping in view that mutual settlement with financial compensation being paid by the doctor is no guarantee that a complaint will not be filed before police or in consumer court. Still there may be situation where the doctor is forced to compromise, in which case he should delay , involve his advocate to make an agreement and pay a part of the agreed amount balance to be paid in court supervised manner after withdrawl of all complaints filed by complainant. There have even been cases where husband of deceased lady has settled the dispute by accepting compensation but case has been filed later by mother of the deceased. In parting a court supervised settlement and lots of sincere prayers are the solution to the quagmire that doctors are finding themselves in more and more these days. But then even this is also not visible as a problem to many within our fraternity.

Dr Neeraj Nagpal

Convenor,Medicos Legal Action Group, Managing Director MLAG Indemnity,

Ex President IMA Chandigarh

Director Hope Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Clinic,

1184, Sector 21 B Chandigarh

09316517176 , 9814013735

0172; 4633735, 2707935, 2706024, 5087794

email; hopeclinics@yahoo.com, hopelinics@gmail.com mlagindemnity@gmail.com

For Contributions; “Medicos Legal Action Group” Ac No 499601010036479 IFSC code UBIN0549967 Union Bank Sector 35 C Chandigarh;