Punjab and Haryana Court has denied bail to Mohammad Faheem, a quack doctor whose incorrect treatment led to the death of a man in 2022. The case, Mohammad Faheem v. State of Haryana, has brought forward the grave risks unregistered medical practitioners in India pose.
The decision was rendered by Justice Namit Kumar, who emphasized the seriousness of the accusations against Faheem. The investigation revealed that Faheem had been practicing as a doctor in his clinic at Aliyar village in Manesar, Gurugram, without possessing any professional degree required under the law. The court noted that Faheem, in an attempt to destroy evidence, allegedly disposed of the victim’s dead body by leaving it on the road near a paying guest accommodation.
Justice Kumar highlighted the necessity for the trial court to determine whether Faheem was indeed a registered medical practitioner and whether he was legally running his clinic. The court remarked, “It is to be seen by the trial court as to whether the petitioner was a registered medical practitioner or not and running his clinic or not, by way of evidence to be adduced before the trial Court. Concededly, a person has lost his life.”
The case was brought to court after Ram Avatar, the complainant, alleged that Faheem's wrongful treatment led to the death of his nephew, Leeladhar. According to Avatar, CCTV footage from the paying guest facility where Leeladhar resided showed that his nephew had a fever and sought treatment from Faheem the day before his death. After Leeladhar’s death, Faheem, along with his friend Shubham, allegedly placed the dead body on the road near the paying guest facility to cover up the incident.
Faheem's lawyer contended that Leeladhar's demise was a result of natural factors, particularly asphyxiation, and emphasized that Faheem had simply given a Monosef injection, an antibiotic. The defense argued that Faheem did not have the intention or knowledge that his actions could lead to death, therefore lacking the necessary elements for an offense under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The defense also mentioned that Faheem had been detained for 1 year and 9 months, and two prosecution witnesses did not back up the case. Nevertheless, the court was unconvinced by the arguments and mentioned its inability to evaluate the medical evidence or procedures because of its lack of expertise in that area. The court noted that while prosecution witnesses Puroshottom and Ram Avtar did not support the prosecution's case, it is important to remember that the investigative agency has not yet provided scientific/medical evidence to support their case and determine the cause of death in front of the trial court.
The court also highlighted that someone found guilty under Section 304(ii) IPC may be sentenced to a maximum of ten years in prison, emphasizing the gravity of the crime. The court rejected the bail request, emphasizing the danger presented by unlicensed medical professionals, stating that they present a considerable hazard to public health in India. Justice Kumar noted that despite laws and regulations, there are still individuals who practice medicine without proper qualifications or registration, endangering patients' lives and resulting in misdiagnosis and improper treatment, ultimately worsening patient conditions. They pose a threat to the health of the public.
TAGS: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mohammad Faheem quack doctor wrongful treatment bail denial unregistered medical practitioners public health asphyxia Monosef injection culpable homicide Section 304(ii) IPC medical evidence trial court Ram Avatar Leeladhar.
