Criminal proceedings quashed where medical boards affirm the procedure’s appropriateness and no evidence proves tampering of consent documentation.

The Appellant, a pediatric surgeon, performed an Orchidectomy (removal of a testicle) on the one-and-a-half-year-old son of Respondent No. 2 (R-2) to treat an undescended testicle.

R-2 alleged that while consent was given for Orchidopexy (moving the testicle), no consent was provided for Orchidectomy.

R-2 further alleged the Appellant forged the consent form by interpolating "Orchidectomy" after the surgery.

An FIR was registered in 2006, leading to a charge sheet under Sections 336, 201, 465, and 471 of the IPC.

Pursuant to a 2013 High Court order, a Medical Board reviewed the case and opined that the testicle was a "nubbin of tissue" (small and dysplastic) with a risk of malignancy; thus, Orchidectomy was the "appropriate surgical procedure".

The High Court dismissed the Appellant’s petition to quash the proceedings in 2023.

The Court emphasized the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

It referenced Sections 88 and 92 of the IPC, which provide general exceptions for acts done in good faith for a person's benefit.

The Court relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, which held that a medical professional should not be prosecuted unless there is prima facie evidence of rashness or negligence supported by a credible medical opinion.

The "Bolam Test" was cited as the standard for determining medical negligence, requiring the skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.

The Court observed that the Medical Board’s report unequivocally stated the Orchidectomy was medically appropriate and ethical given the condition of the child’s testicle.

While R-2 alleged a lack of consent and interpolation, the Court noted that the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services found the consent form to be in order and consistent with general hospital procedures.

The Court personally examined the consent form (Annexure P-2) and found that "Orchidopexy / Orchidectomy" were listed as alternatives using a slash, which is standard when a surgeon must decide the final procedure upon opening the patient.

Crucially, there was no forensic evidence or material on record suggesting that the word "Orchidectomy" was written in different ink or handwriting.

The Court reasoned that since the surgery was medically necessary and no malice was attributed to the doctor, continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

The Court held that the allegations did not prima facie constitute a criminal offense in light of the expert medical opinion confirming the procedure's appropriateness and the lack of evidence regarding forgery.

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 13 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Poonamallee, were quashed.