Delhi District Court
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum vs Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For … on 4 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010050362024
Cr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre For
Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum
W/o Lt. Mohd. Sabir
R/o A-44, Navjeevan Camp, Govindpuri,
New Delhi ....... REVISIONIST
Vs.
Dr. Rajendra prasad Centre for Opthalmic
Sciences, AIIMS, New Delhi
AIIMS Campus Temple, Sri Aurobindo Marg,
Ansari Nagar, Ansari Nagar East,
New Delhi-110029 ....... RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.05.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 24.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 04.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant petition under Section 397 of Cr.
P.C., revisionist take exception to an order dated 22.02.2024
passed by Ld. MM-06, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, in
case bearing CT no. 369/2022, titled as ‘Abida Begum @ Aamera
Begum Vs. Rajendra Prasad Center for Opthalmic Science
PURSHOTTAM
Cr Rev/209/2024 PATHAK
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
Page 1 of 13
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.03.05
13:54:23 +0530
AIIMS, New Delhi and Anr.’ whereby Ld. Magistrate has
dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C.
2. The factual position has been noted by the Ld. Trial Court
in following manner:-
“The case of the complainant is that on 26.04.2016 she was operated
with surgery for complicated cataract in her left eye at Safdarjung hospital
New Delhi. Doctors of Safdarjung hospital suggested that her vision could
not be restored because of blood clotting in her left eye. Thereafter in May
2016 she visited AIIMS Hospital for her routine left eye checkup and further
treatment. When she was regularly visiting AIIMS for her left eye checkup,
one day before Covid 19 lockdown she was informed by the doctor of
AIIMS that her right eye is diagnosed with glaucoma for which urgent
surgery is required. Thereafter, date of 28th August 2021 was given for the
surgery of her right eye in the AIIMS hospital. On 28.08.2021 she visited
AIIMS and thereafter she was got admitted in the same hospital for her
surgery. Then one doctor came to her and took her in one room and asked
her to wait till injection (maybe anesthesia) will be given. But, suddenly a
lady doctor came to her and took her to OT in other room. She immediately
informed that lady doctor that earlier other doctor who took her in that room,
asked her to wait till injection is given but till then no injection was given
and the lady doctor brought her there in OT. But, that lady doctor ignored her
concern. Thereafter, that lady doctor operated her right eye and suddenly
something got torn in her right eye and it started bleeding and immensely
paining. She started crying and shouting but that lady doctor ran away from
the OT without providing her any urgent medical first-aid. After 30-40
minutes, one doctor namely Dr. Vinod Kumar came to her and provided her
with requisite medical treatment and when she informed the doctor that she
cannot see anything from her right eye, Dr. Vinod replied that something got
torn in her right eye due to which her vision could not be restored in future.
Thereafter on recommendation of doctor she remained admitted in the
hospital from 28.08.2021 to 08.09.2021 and on 08.09.2021 doctor performed
second eye surgery to restore her vision but her vision could not be restored.
On 16.11.2021 she was admitted into AIIMS hospital for third eye surgery
but despite her eye surgery her vision could not be restored. Then she visited
Sarfa Hospital for my eye checkup but astonishingly she was informed by
the doctor concern that her eye curtain is detached and now her vision cannot
be restore. She lost her vision of right eye due to the negligence and
carelessness of that lady doctor of AIIMS hospital namely Birnali Anand
Yadav. On 22.12.2021 she gave complaint to DMC and on 01.02.2022 sheCr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi Digitally
Page 2 of 13 signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
13:54:26
+0530
filed the complaint to SHO PS Hauz Khas and 24.02.2022 copy of complaint
was given to ICMR, ACP and DCP but no action was taken.”
3. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the complainant
sought prosecution of the respondent / proposed accused for
offences under Section 269/287/325/326/336/338/34 IPC and
filed the complaint u/s 200 CrPC alongwith an application u/s
156(3) CrPC. The application u/s 156(3) CrPC was dismissed by
Ld. Trial court on 05.10.2023 and complainant was allowed to
pursue the matter as a complaint case and to lead pre summoning
evidence. The revisionist examined herself as CW1 in support of
her allegations in pre-summoning evidence. Ld. MM, vide
impugned order, dismissed the complaint of the revisionist
finding no sufficient ground to summon the respondent/accused.
4. Vide impugned order, Ld Trial Court while deciding the
application, observed as follows:-
“It is the allegation of complainant that when glaucoma in her right eyes
was found by the doctor, she was suggested to be operation. When she was
admitted on 28.08.2021 she was asked to wait until anesthesia is given.
Thereafter one lady doctor came took her and ignored her concern. Without
providing anesthesia they performed the operation due to which her curtain
of right eye got torn. As per the allegations of complainant doctor was
negligent in performing the operation. In the present case the report of Delhi
Medico council was received on 07.07.2023 according to which prima-facie
no case of medical negligence was made out on part of Dr. Rajender Prasad
centre of Opthalmic Sciences, AIIMS in treatment administered to
complainant. As per the report of Delhi Medical Council complainant was
suffering progressive optic nerve damage due to raise intra-ocular pressure. It
is further stated in the report that on the day of cataract surgery of right eye,
the patient had intra-operative posterior capsule rent alongwith posterior
dislocation of nuclear fragment. This was further complicated with the
development of suprachoroidal hemorrhage further the patient was also
diagnosed with diabetes. On 08.09.2021 when ultrasound confirmed
Cr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
Page 3 of 13 Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
13:54:30
+0530
liquefaction of suprachoroidal blood the patient underwent right eye
suprachoroidal drainage with vitro-retina surgery with phaco-fragmentation
of dropped nuclear fragments along-with silicone oil injection. After an
initial period of settled retina, patient was detected with inferior re-
detachment alongwith macular hole. A re-VR-surgery with ILM peeling was
done on 16.11.2021. Following this, the retina settled and the patient had a
vision of hand movement close to face. The patient had an uncommon but
potentially catastrophic condition in the form of suprachoroidal hemorrhage
during the cataract surgery. The procedures adapted were timely standard
and the very best available and also as per established medical literature.
Perusal of the detailed report of Delhi Medical Council, shows that
there is no ground for summoning accused persons in the case. Further it is
not necessary in every case that anesthesia be given before performing the
cataract surgery. The status of case differ from patient to patient. Thus no
medical negligence can be attributed to the concerned doctor who performed
the operation.
Thus, there is no prima facie ground for proceeding u/s
269/287/325/326/336/338/34 IPC. against respondent. Thus the present
complaint is dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C.”
5. Revisionist has filed the instant petition assailing the
impugned order on various grounds which can be summarized as
under:-
i. that the impugned order is not only contrary to the facts but
also contrary to the law and therefore unsustainable in the eyes
of law.
ii. that the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order failed to
appreciate the averments and depositions of the Complaint and
the pre-summoning evidence.
iii. that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the internal
enquiry report of Delhi Medical Council.
Cr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
Page 4 of 13 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
13:54:34
+0530
iv. that the Ld. Trial Court while relying upon the internal enquiry
report of Delhi Medical Council failed to appreciate the fact
that there was no representation of Revisionist in such enquiry.
v. that the Ld. Trial Court mechanically dismissed the Complaint
of the Revisionist without evaluating the prima facie allegation
and offences it attracts.
vi. that the Ld. Trial Court wrongly gave the findings that “it is
not necessary in every case that anesthesia be given before
performing the cataract surgery” without analyzing the entire
circumstances under which revisionist lost her right eye vision.
vii. that Ld. Trial Court did not gave any finding as why or how
no prima facie offence is made out under section 269/
287/336/338/34 IPC.
viii. that the impugned order apparently have been passed without
appreciating the facts of the present case and the settled
principals of Law in proper perspective.
ix. that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court not only
suffers from material irregularities, but is perverse and against
the well settled provisions of law and thus is liable to be set
aside.
6. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by counsels for
both sides and also perused the record.
Cr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
Digitally
Page 5 of 13 signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
13:54:38
+0530
7. Ld. counsel appearing for the revisionist argued on the line of
grounds as mentioned in the instant revision petition. He has
vehemently argued that the Ld. Trial Court committed grave error
in passing the impugned order as the same was passed hastily
ignoring the factual matrix and materials available on record. He
further argued that the material available on record is abundant to
take cognizance and summon the respondent for all the offences.
On the strength of these arguments, revisionist seeks setting aside
of the impugned order.
8. Per contra, Ld. counsels appearing for respondent refuted the
said contentions by arguing that the impugned order does not
suffer from any illegality, infirmity or incorrectness. It was
vehemently argued that no case for summoning is made out
against the respondent as there is no specific allegation against the
respondent. It was argued that no expert opinion has been
produced by the complainant stating that there has been any
medical negligence, instead the medical experts of DMC have
found no fault in the treatment given to the complainant. It was
further submitted that revisionist had a vision of 1/60 before
surgery and as per WHO guidelines anybody having vision less
then 3/60 is determined to be blind. It was submitted that entire
process was explained to the revisionist and surgery was done
only after obtaining the consent of revisionist. It is further argued
that no medical negligence has happened. Ld. counsel for the
Cr Rev/209/2024 Digitally
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
Page 6 of 13 PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
13:54:42
+0530
respondent has relied upon the judgment i.e. Jacob Mathew Vs.
State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC .
9. The complainant has filed the complaint for taking
cognizance and summoning the accused persons for offence under
Sec. 269/287/325/326/336/338/34 IPC. To substantiate the
averments, the complainant has examined herself as CW-1 but
failed to prove a prima facie case against the accused. Admittedly,
the revisionist/ complainant was operated with surgery for
cataract in her left eye at Safdarjung hospital, New Delhi on
26.04.2016, where the doctors suggested that her vision could not
be restored because of blood clotting in her left eye. Thereafter,
she started visiting AIIMS hospital for routine check up, where
Doctors diagnosed glaucoma in her right eye.
10. Complainant has stated that on 28.08.2021, she was admitted
in AIIMS hospital for surgery, where the doctor took her into a
room and asked her to wait till injection (may be anesthesia) is
given. In the meantime a lady doctor came there and took her to
OT, despite her informing the lady doctor that another doctor has
told her to wait till injection is given. But the lady doctor did not
listen to her and operated her right eye. Suddenly something got
torn in her right eye which started bleeding with immense pain
and lady doctor ran away from OT. Thereafter one Doctor Vinod
came to her and gave medical treatment informing her that
something got torn in her right eye due to which her vision cannot
Cr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
PURSHOTTAM
Page 7 of 13 PATHAK
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.03.05
13:54:46 +0530
be restored in future. She has alleged that she lost vision in her
right eye due to negligence and carelessness of that lady doctor.
11. The revisionist-complainant has not examined Dr. Vinod or
any other doctor or medical expert in her pre-summoning
evidence to give a contrary opinion from the one given in the
Delhi Medical Council report. No document has been produced
on the record to show the negligence of the said doctor or the
respondent.
12. In case titled Jacob Mathew Versus State of Punjab and
others 2005(5) Supreme 297 Hon’ble apex court observed that “a
private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant
has produced a prima facie evidence before the court in the form
of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to
support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the
accused doctor.”
13. After going through the Delhi Medical council report
received on 07.07.2023, it is revealed that the following opinion
has been recorded therein:-
“The Executive Committee noted that the patient Smt Abida Begum
was diagnosed as right eye healed Keratitis with senile cataract (Nuclear
sclerosis III) with secondary glaucoma and left eye as complicated
pseudophakia with secondary glaucoma. Prior to this she had been operated
in left eye on 26.04.2016 for cataract surgery (got complicated) at Safdarjung
Hospital. Also, she was under treatment for glaucoma in right eye at R. P.
Centre since 08.01.2018. The record show that she was not very compliant
with the prescribed medical therapy and was suffering progressive optic
nerve damage due to raised intraocular pressure. Her cup disc ratio as
Cr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
Page 8 of 13
Digitally signe
by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
13:54:49
+0530
recorded on 20.05.2021 were 0.7 and 0.9 respectively the visual acuity was
1/60 and finger counting close to face respectively. A guarded visual
prognosis was mentioned in the OPD card prior to surgery and detailed
consent was taken. On the day of cataract surgery of right eye i.e. on
28.08.2021, the patient had an intraoperative posterior capsule rent along
with posteriro dislocation of nuclear fragments. This was further complicated
with the development of suprachoroidal haemorrhage. The wound was
immediately closed and surgery postponed. In the post-operative period, the
eye condition was monitored closed particularly the status of suprachoridal
haemorrhage. The patient was also treated for diabetes. On 08.09.2021 when
ultrasound confirmed liquefaction of suprachoroidal blood the patient
underwent right eye suprachoroidal drainage with vitro-retina surgery with
phaco-gragmentation of dropped nuclear fragments along with silicone oil
injectin. After an initial period of settled retaina. [atoemt was detected with
inferior re-detagchment along with macular hole. A re-VR-surgery with ILM
peeling was done on 16.11.2021. Following this, the retina settled and the
patient had a vision of hand movement close to face.
The patient had an uncommon but potentially catastrophic condition in
the form of suprachoroidal haemorrhage during the cataract surgery. The
procedures adapted were timely standard and the very best available and also
as per established medical literature. Inspite of the best possible effort, the
visual acuity did not improve as per expectations. This is again as per
described medical literature where the presence of certain risk factors like
old age, atherosclerosis, diabetes mellitus, glaucoma, aphakia vitreous loss
during surgery, hypotony and poor pre operative visual acuity are associated
with poor visual recovery, subsequently to subarachnoid hemorrhage,
Keratitis, glaucoma and macluar hole were other compounding factors. ”
14. A perusal of the said report suggest that no case of medical
negligence is made out on the part of doctors of Dr Rajendra
Prasad Centre for Opthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Perusal of Delhi Medical Council
Report reveals that there are no negligence on the part of the
respondent/accused.
15. Thus, there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the report
of Delhi Medical Council. So far as offence under
Cr Rev/209/2024 Digitally signed
by
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
Page 9 of 13 2025.03.05
13:54:53
+0530
269/287/336/338/ IPC is concerned, no rash or negligent act has
been done by the respondent/ accused, so prima facie no offence
under aforesaid sections is made out.
16. The revisionist/complainant has alleged commission of
criminal offence under Section 325/326 IPC but no allegations
pertaining to the said sections have been mentioned in the
complaint. So, prima facie no offence under these sections has
been made out against the respondent/ accused. Even there is no
prima facie intention or knowledge on part of respondent of
causing grievous hurt of the patient/ revisionist.
17. It is a settled law that summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in
M/s. Pepsi Foods & Anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.,
AIR 1998 SC 128, wherein it was observed:-
“Summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant
has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to
have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts
of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and
documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the
complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary
evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put
questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out
the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any
offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused”.
Cr Rev/209/2024 Digitally
signed by
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
Page 10 of 13 PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
13:54:57
+0530
18. Similar are the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Ravindranatha Bajpe vs Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd.
& Others, Crl Appeal No.1047-1048/2021 dated 27th September
2021.
19. If the factual matrix of the present case is tested upon the
touchstone of the principles as laid down in said cases, I find that
there is no such evidence giving strong suspicion for commission
of offences punishable u/s 269/287/325/326/336/338/34 IPC
against the respondents. This court is of the view that the Ld. MM
has provided clear and cogent reasons for not summoning the
respondent. I am of the considered view that no ground for
summoning of respondent was made in the instant case and
therefore, the view as taken by Ld. MM cannot be faulted with.
20. In the matter of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 312 Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed as
under:-
“9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is
well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions
Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any
inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality,
propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising
court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A
court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality
and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from
substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence.”
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
Cr Rev/209/2024 PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi 13:55:00
+0530
Page 11 of 13
21. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao
Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC
123 observed as under :
“14…..Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view
taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of
any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the
Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because
another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an
appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to
preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles
of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections
397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the
finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be
perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly
unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the
material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in
exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.”
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High
Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This
Court set aside the High Court’s order holding that the High Court exceeded
its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis.”
22. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, this court
in its revisional jurisdiction, is not expected to substitute its own
view with that of court below unless the order passed by Ld. Trial
Court suffers from jurisdictional error or patent
infirmity/illegality. In the instant case, as evident from record, Ld.
Magistrate while narrating (in detail) the facts, passed a well
reasoned detailed order, thereby dismissing the complaint of
revisionist under section 203 CrPC finding no sufficient ground
for proceedings against the respondents and therefore, this court
cannot and rather ought not substitute its own view with that of
Cr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
Page 12 of 13 Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.05
13:55:04
+0530
Ld. Magistrate (while exercising its revisional jurisdiction) and
thereby arriving at a different conclusion.
23. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or material
illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which
would occasion injustice, if it is not set aside, Accordingly, the
criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
24. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed
off.
25. TCR alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld.
Trial Court.
26. The revision file be consigned to the Record Room after
due compliance. Digitally signed
by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK
Date:
2025.03.05
13:55:08 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH)
04th DAY OF MARCH, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 13 signed pages)Cr Rev/209/2024
Abida Begum @ Aamera Begum Vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Centre For Opthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi
Page 13 of 13
