ANKUR ARORA MURDER CASE

INTRODUCTION:

Nothing is nobler than saving lives, and nothing is more ignoble than failing to do so out of sheer
negligence. The failure becomes worse – rather worst – when one is a doctor. Doctors are very
much under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and may well be sued for negligence.
However, in certain cases where the patient dies, they are also charged under the IPC.

Supreme Court has ruled that ordinary lack of care is not enough for the doctors to be charged
under criminal law because this would make the doctors wary of making the last-ditch effort to
save a patient for the fear of being charged with a criminal offence.

It is important that doctors perform their job fearlessly. However, the ruling referred to above does
not protect the doctors from civil liability if negligence is proved and they may also be charged
under the IPC if the negligence is gross enough.

The Ankur Arora murder case is all about 8 year old kid died due to the medical negligence by a
surgeon. It is not stated that doctors are negligent or irresponsible but while performing the duty
which requires a lot of patience and care, often many practitioners fail or breaches their
responsibility towards the patient.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

I.

Dr. Asthana the chief surgeon of Shekhwat General Hospital. Dr. Romesh and Dr. Riya were co-
interns. Ankur Arora, an 8 year old boy was admitted to this hospital by his mother Nandita Arora
as he was suffering from severe stomach ache. After examining him, Dr. Romesh informed
Nandita that he was suffering from appendicitis because of which he had to get admitted in the
hospital.
 II.

In order to cure this, the doctors had to do a surgery on the boy. The surgery can be done only
when the patient is on empty stomach. But, the boy had some biscuits and had informed the nurse
about the same before operation. Dr. Astana operates on the patient suffering from appendicitis
even though the patient’s stomach was not empty. He forgets to use Ryle’s Tube.

III.

The boy dies as he does the surgery even after knowing that he wasn’t on empty stomach. He died
because of the negligence on the part of the surgeon. Later, the hospital and Dr. Astana attempted
to cover up the incident by saying it was an organ failure at the time of operation.

IV.

Mrs. Nandita have files a case against Shekhwat General Hospital and Dr. Astana with the help of
her lawyer Kajori Sen.

LAWS APPLYING TO THE CASE:

In the present case, Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code, Consumer Protection Act and Law of Torts
play a vital role.

A. INDIAN PENAL CODE:

SECTION MEANING HOW IS IT RELATED WITH FACTS OF

THE CASE?

304A Causing death by Negligence In this case Dr. Astana operated the child
even when she was knowing he was not
on an empty stomach. This act of
negligence by her caused death of 8 year
old kid.
 204 Destruction of documents or In this case, the accused destroyed the
electronic records to prevent its evidence by way of removing finger
production as evidence prints on the documents.

499 Defamation In this case, the accused have took

alleged the other party that they are
trying to defame the hospital.

B. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT:

SECTION MEANING HOW IS IT RELATED WITH FACTS OF THE

CASE?

7 Facts which are occasion, cause or In the present, case the deceased had
effect of facts in issue are relevant biscuits before operation because of
which he died. This fact is relevant under
this Section

14 Facts showing existence of state of This provision includes negligence. The

mind, or of body or bodily feeling fact that the surgeon was aware that he
wasn’t on empty stomach is an act of
negligence and therefore it becomes
relevant.

3 Documentary evidence The consent form signed by the victim’s

mother before operation is a
documentary evidence to the case as per
this provision.

45 Opinion of expert In this case, the post mortem report

shows that the boy had consumed food
one hour before the surgery.
 24 Extra-judicial confession In this case, the nurse confesses that she
had informed Dr. Astana that he had
biscuits while they were in conversation
on phone.

C. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT:

Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association vs. VP Shantha, that medical profession has been
brought under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vide Section 2(1) (o), 1986 of the
Act. Therefore, any act of negligence by the doctors attracts the provisions of Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

1. Whether Dr. Astana is liable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
2. Whether Dr. Astana is liable under Section 302of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

CONCLUSION:

Doctor is one of the noblest professions and it holds a great responsibility towards the society. It
becomes their utmost duty to act with duty of care and diligence. In order to be doctor a man must
also have a good character. Whatever weaknesses and foibles he may have, he must love his fellow
human beings in the concrete and desire their good before their own. One should not be negligent
like the case above.

Death and suffering due to medical negligence is a crime and the criminal shouldn’t go
unpunished. A death in an operation theatre due to negligence is a plain murder. It has been very
frequent now a days as there are several cases reported on victims of medical negligence. Further,
need arises to improve our medical jurisprudence in order to prevents other surgeons from
committing such an act which leads to death. It is necessary for the medical profession to undertake
some serious introspection. The Medical Sector needs to accept the fact that it has failed miserably
in self-governance. It needs to organize various ethical forums so as to revitalize and serve with
complete righteousness.