Holding

The alleged negligence does not amount to gross negligence or recklessness, so no offence under Section 304A is made out and the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

Summary

Dr. Suresh Gupta, a plastic surgeon, was charged under Section 304A of the IPC for the death of a patient during a minor nasal surgery. He sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, which the High Court refused. The Supreme Court examined whether the complaint and accompanying medical reports disclosed an offence of gross negligence or recklessness sufficient for criminal liability. It held that the alleged omission of a cuffed endotracheal tube, while negligent, did not rise to the level of gross negligence required under Section 304A. Applying the test for quashing under Section 482, the Court found no offence was made out and set aside the orders of the Magistrate and High Court, thereby quashing the proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when the complaint does not disclose an offence.
Whether the alleged medical negligence constitutes gross negligence or recklessness sufficient for criminal liability under Section 304A IPC.
Interpretation of Sections 80 and 88 IPC in the context of medical treatment.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304A, s. 80, s. 88

Subjects

medical negligencecriminal liabilitySection 304A IPCgross negligenceSection 482 CrPCquashing of criminal proceedingsdoctor-patient relationshiprecklessness

Judgment

DR. SURESH GUPTA A
V.

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR.

AUGUST 4; 2004

[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 73 :

Section 482-lnherent power ofHigh Court-Criminal proceedings-
Quashing of-Tests to be applied-Held : The test is that taking the C
allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting
anything, if no offence is made out, the High Court will be justified in
quashing the proceedings-On facts,, proceedings under S. 304-A !PC
quashed.

Penal Code, 1860 : D
Section 304-A-Medical negligence-Causing death_:Liability of
doctors-Held : Where a patient dies due to the negligent medical
treatment of the doctor, the doctor can be made liable in civil law for
paying compensation and damages in tort and at the same time, if the E
degree ofnegligence is so gross and his act was reckless so as to endanger
the life ofthe patient, he would also be made criminally liable Law of Torts.

Section 304-A-Medical negligence-Causing death by-Standard of
negligence-Patient died during the course of surgical operation-Caus"
of death was due to non-introduction of a cuffed endotracheal tube of F
proper size as to prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the
respiratory passage-Effect of-Held-The act attributed to the doctor,
even if accepted to be true, can be described as negligent act as there was
lack of due care and precaution-This act of negligence may attract
liability in tort-But such carelessness or want of due attention and skill G
cannot be described to be so reckless or grossly negligent as to attract
criminal liability.

Words & Phrases :

"Recklessness" and "gross negligence"-Meaning of H
323
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A According to the prosecution, the appellant-doctor operated upon
his patient for removing his nasal deformity. The patient died during
the course of the surgical operation. The cause of death as per medical
opinion was due to non-introduction of a cuffed endotracheal tube of
proper size to prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the
B respiratory passage. The appellant was, therefore, charge-sheeted
under Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The appellant filed a
petition before the High· Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the criminal proceedings,
which was dismissed. Hence the appeal.
c Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. It is settled position in law that the inherent power of
the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 for quashing criminal proceedings can be invoked only in cases
D where on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the
same no offence is made out for proceeding with the trial, In other
words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint, as they
are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out,
the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. [328-F-H)
E
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR (1983)
SC 67 and Drugs Inspector v. B.K. Krishnaiah, AIR (1981) SC 1164,
relied on.

2.1. The legal position is almost firmly established that where a
F patient dies due to the negligent medical treatment of the doctor, the
doctor can be made liable in civil law for paying compensation and
damages in tort and at the same time, if the degree of negligence is so
gross and his act was reckless as to endanger the life of the patient,
he would also be made criminally liable for an offence under Section
G 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860. (311-A-B]
2.2. For fixing criminal liability on a doctor or a surgeon, the
standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as can
be described as "gross negligence" or "recklessness". It is not merely
•.
H lack of necessary care, attention and skill. [332-G]
SURESH GUPTA v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 325
R. v. Adomako, (1994) 3 All ER 79, referred to. A
3.1. Thus, when a patient agrees to go for medical treatment or
surgical operation, every careless act of the medical man cannot be
termed as 'criminal'. It can be termed 'criminal' only when the
medical man exhibits a gross lack of competence or inaction and B
wanton indifference to his patient's safety and which is found to have
arisen from gross ignorance or gross negligence. Where a patient's
death results merely from error of judgment or an accident, no
criminal liability should be attached to it. Mere inadvertence or some
degree of want of adequate care and caution might create civil liability
but would not suffice to hold him criminally liable. (333-A-C) C
3.2. For every mishap or death during medical treatment, the
medical man cannot be proceeded against for punishment. Criminal
prosecution of doctors without adequate medical opinion pointing to
their guilt would be doing great disservice to the community at large D
because if the courts were to impose criminal liability on hospitals and
doctors for everything that goes wrong, the doctors. would be more
worried about their own safety than giving all best treatment to their
patients. This would lead to shaking the mutual confidence between the
doctor and the patient. Every mishap or misfortune in the hospital or
clinic of a doctor is not a gross act of negligence to try him for an E
offence of culpable negligence. [333-E-F)

Suleman Rehman Mulani v. State ofMaharashtra, (1968] 2 S<::R 515
and Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, [1969] 1 SCR
206 relied on.
F
Allan Mary and Alexander McCall Smith : Errors, Medicine and the
Law pp. 247-248, referred to.

4. No doubt in the present case, the patient was a young man with
no history of any heart ailment. The operation to be performed for G
nasal deformity was not so complicated or serious. He was not
accompanied even by his own wife during the operation. From the
medical opinions produced by the prosecution, the cause of death is
stated to be 'not introducing a cuffed endotracheal tube of proper size
as to prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the respiratory H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A passage', This act attributed to the doctor, even if accepted to be true,
can be described as a negligent act as there was lack of due care and
precaution. For this act of negligence he may be liable in tort but his
carelessness or want of due attention and skill cannot be described to
be so reckless or grossly negligent as to make him criminally liable.
B (333-G-H; 334-A)

5. After examining all the medical papers accompanying the
complaint, it is found that no case of recklessness or gross negligence
has been made out against the appellant-doctor to compel him to face
the trial for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. (335-D-E)
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.: Criminal Appeal No.
778 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated I st April, 2003 of the Punjab
D & Haryana High Court in Cr!. Revision Petition No. I 00 of 2003.
Ashok H. Desai, Aloke Kumar Sengupa, Ms. Sushma Sharma,
Meghalee Barthakur, Mrinal Kanti Manda!, Ms. Anindita Sengupta, Rajan
Narain and Suraj Prakash for the Appellant.

E Harish Chandra, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Vineet Malhotra, Mrs. Anil
Katiyar and Nikilesh Ramachandran for the Respondents

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DHARMADHIKARI, J. : Leave to appeal is granted.
F
The appellant who is a Doctor (Plastic Surgeon) is in the dock as an
accused on the charge under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code [for
short the '!PC'] for causing death of his patient on 18.4.1994. The patient
was operated by him for removing his nasal deformity. It may be
G mentioned at the outset, that the Anesthetist who was assisting the surgeon
in the operation was also made co-accused but it is reported that he died
pending the trial. The proceedings, therefore, stand abated against him.

The appellant urged before the Magistrate that the medical evidence
produced by the prosecution, does not make out any case against him to
H proceed with the trial. The learned magistrate in deciding to proceed with
SURESH GUPTA v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 327

the trial recorded following reasons in the impugned order dated 28.11.1998 A
passed by him :-

"Postmortem report is very categorical and very clear and it has
been clearly mentioned therein that death was due to the
complication arising out of the operation. That operation was B
conducted by both the accused persons. It is also clear from the
material on record that deceased was young man of 3 8 years
having no cardiac problem at all and because of the negligence
of the doctors while conducting minor operation for removing
nasal deformity, gave incision at wrong part due to that blood
seeped into the respiratory passage and because of that patient C
immediately collapsed and died and it was also attempted to show
by the accused persons that he was alive at that time and was taken
to Ganga Ram Hospital for further medical attention ........................ .

D
It is clear from the record that patient had actually died at the clinic
of the accused and therefore, I am of the opinion that there are
sufficient grounds on record to make out a prima facie case
against both the accused for commission of offence under Section
304A !PC. Let notice be served accordingly." E
[Emphasis supplied}

As the Magistrate decided to proceed with the trial, the doctor
approached the High Court by petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The High Court refused to quash the criminal F
proceedings and upheld the order of the Magistrate, although it records that
the Metropolitan Magistrate was obviously wrong, in the absence of any
medical opinion, in coming to a conclusion that the surgeon had given a
cut at wrong place of the body of the patient at the time of operation leading
to blood seeping into the respiratory passage and blocking it resulting in
his death. The High Court, however, declined to quash the proceedings G
against the doctor for the alleged criminal liability. In the impugned order
dated 1.4.2003, it recorded its reasons thus :-

... "In the present case two doctors who conducted the post-mortem
examination have taken an emphatic stand which they have H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A reiterated even after the Special Medical Board opinion, that death
in this case was due to 'asphyxia resulting from blockage of
respiratory passage by aspirated blood consequent upon surgically
incised margin ofnasal septum. 'This indicates that adequate care
was not taken to prevent seepage of blood down the respiratory
B passage which resulted in asphyxia. The opinion of the Special
Medical Board is not free from ambiguity for the reasons already
given. Such ambiguity can be explained by the concerned doctors
when they are examined during the trial."

Learned senior counsel Shri Ashok Desai appearing for the doctor,
C has taken us through the contents of the medical opinions produced by the
prosecution with the complaint and some medical books and decided cases
to submit that accepting the entire case of the prosecution, as has been laid
before the trial magistrate, to be true, no case for convicting the doctor
for criminal negligence under section 304A IPC has been made out. He
D submits that in the larger interest of medical profession, the criminal
proceedings instituted against his client deserve to be quashed.

Reliance is placed on the House of Lords decision in the case of R
v. Adomako, [1994] 3 All E. R. 79; Su/eman Rehman Mulani v. State of
Maharashtra, [1968] 2 SCR 515 and Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak
E Bapu Godbole, [1969] 1 SCR 206. ·

We have also heard learned senior counsel Shri Harish Chandra for
the prosecution, who supported the view taken by the Magistrate and the
High Court that the surgeon was guilty of gross negligence in giving an
F incision at the wrong place and did not take necessary precautions in the
course of surgical operation to prevent seepage of blood down the
respiratory passage of the patient and the resultant death by asphyxia.

It is settled position in law that the inherent power of the High Court
under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing criminal
G proceedings can be invoked only in cases where on the face of the
complaint or the papers accompanying the same no offence is made out
for proceeding with the trial. In other words, the test is that taking the
allegations and the complaint, as they are, without adding or subtracting
anything, if no offence is made out, the High Court will be justified in
H quashing the proceedings [See Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram
SURESH GUPTA v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 329

Kishan Rohtagi, AIR (1983) SC 67; and Durgs Inspector v. B.K. Krishnaiah, A
AIR (1981) SC 1164].

To decide whether on the basis of the complaint and the medical
opinion produced along with it, any offence is made out or not, it is
necessary to examine the papers produced with the complaint. The patient
died in the course of surgical operation on 18.4.1994, but the post-mortem B
was conducted on 21.4.1994. By that time rigor mortis had almost passed
off. The post-mortem report gave opinion on the cause of death by
recording thus :-

"Asphyxia resulting from blockage of respiratory passage by C
aspirated blood consequent upon surgically incised margin of
nasal septum. The cause of death to the best of my knowledge and
answers to the question put by IO."

A Special Medical Board of four eminent doctors was constituted by
the investigating agency out of which three recorded their unanimous D
opinion as under :-

After the perusal of all the documents produced before the
Committee, we are of the view that the death of Mr. Siavash
Karim Arbab, occurred due to sudden cardiac arrest, the direct E
cause of which (Cardiac Arrest) cannot be ascertained. However,
possible cause leading to cardiac arrest can be as follows :-

I. Hypotension due Head-up-Position
2. Adverse drug reaction
3. Hypoxia F
Death due to Asphyxia resulting from blockage of air passage
secondary to ante-mortem aspiration of blood from the wound is
not likely in the presence of cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper
size (8.5), which was introduced before the operation and remained G
in position till the patient was declared dead in Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital, as per statements ofmembers ofthe operating team and
available records. In the post-mortem report there is presence of
clotted fluid blood in respiratory passage, which invariably occurs
ante-mortem d.ue to aspiration from operation site. However, the
presence offluid and clotted blood in the respiratory passage, as H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A noted in the post-mortem report, due to trickling ofdecomposition
bloody fluid and some clot present in the nostril from the site of
incision in the nose, cannot be ruled out after the tube is taken
out. lt is worth mentioning in the present case that the death
occurred on 18.4.1994 at 2.30 p.m. and the post-mortem was
conducted on 21.4.1994 at 12.20 p.m. when sufficient degree of
B decomposition had started.

Sd/- Dr. Bharat Singh Sd/- Dr. Rizvi Sd/-P.L. Dhingra
Chairman Member Member
[Emphasis supplied}
c One of the members of the doctors team Prof. Jagannatham gave a
separate report which reads as under :-

"After going through he relevant papers/documents and surgery
and anaesthesia notes, it was observed that, what medical care was
D actually extended to the patient from 5 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. on
18.4.1994 at Delhi Plastic Surgery Clinic. It is surprising that
the patient's physical status belonged to ASA Grade-I. The actual
cause of cardiac arrest on the table noticed immediately after the
start of operation, was not clear and it still stands as enigmas
E whether the surgeon had given any adrenaline infiltration to the
patient or originally planned to do the surgery under local
anaesthesia could not be decided. There is no mention about the
use of inhalation-anaesthesia during the surgical procedure under
the general anaesthesia.

F However, both anaesthetics and the surgeon immediately noticed
the cardiac arrest and started resuscitative measures well-in time
to save the patient's life. With all good intentions and team spirit,
they transported the patient under manual ventilation (supporting
respirations) and shifted the patient to Ganga Ram Hospital's ICU.
G Sd/-
(Dr. Jagannatham)
15.11.1995"

It is on these medical papers produced by the prosecution, we have
H to decide whether the High Court was right in holding that criminal liability
SURESH GUPTA v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 331

prima facie has arisen against the surgeon and he must face the trial. The A
legal position is almost firmly established that where a patient dies due to
the negligent medical treatment of the doctor, the doctor can be made liable
in civil law for paying compensation and damages in tort and at the same
time, if the degree of negligence is so gross and his act was reckless as
to endanger the Ji fe of the patient, he would also be made criminally liable B
for offence under section 304A of !PC.

Section 304A of !PC reads thus :-

"304A. Causing death by negligence. - Whoever causes the death
of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting C
to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extent to two years, or
with fine, or with both."

On behalf of the doctor learned counsel referred to section 80 and
section 88 of the !PC to contend that in various kinds of medical treatment D
and surgical operation, likelihood of an accident or misfortu.ne leading to
death cannot be ruled out. A patient willingly takes such a risk. This is part
of doctor patient relationship and mutual trust between them.

Section 80 and 88 read as under :- E
"80. Accident in doing a lawful act.- Nothing is an offence which
is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal
intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful
manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
F
88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith
for person's benefit. - Nothing which is not intended to cause
death, is an offence by reason of any harrn which it may cause,
or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to
cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person G
for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a
consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take
the risk of that harrn."

Applying the laid down test for quashing or refusing to quash the
criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, H
332 .• SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A we have to find out whether from the complaint and the accompanying
medical papers and by accepting the entire case alleged by the prosecution
to be true, an order of conviction of the doctor for offence under section
304A of !PC can be passed.

B The operation was performed on 18.4.1994 and the patient is alleged
to have died on the same day. The post-mortem was performed after three
days i.e. on 21.4.1994. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of
death was : "blockage ofrespiratory passage by aspirated blood consequent
upon surgically incised margin of nasal septum."

c The medical experts constituting the Special Medical Board set up by
the investigation have opined that "the blockage of air passage was due
to aspiration of blood from the wound and it was not likely in the presence
of cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper size being introduced before the
operation and remained in position." The team of experts also opined that
D 'presence of fluid and clotted blood in respiratory passage is likely, as it
invariably occurs ante-mortem due to aspiration from operation site.' But
they also opined that 'presence of fluid and clotted blood in the respiratory
passage, as noted in the post-mortem report, due to trickling of decomposition
bloody fluid and some clot present in the nostril from the site of incision
in the nose, cannot be ruled out after the tube is taken out.'
E
Dr. Jagannatham, one of the members of the Special Medical Team
constituted during investigation has, however, given separate opinion, the
details of which we have quoted above. It seems to be to some extent in
favour of the accused surgeon. From the post-mortem report and the
F opinion of the three medical experts of the medical team specially
constituted, the case of the prosecution laid against the surgeon is that there
was negligence in 'not putting a cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper size'
and in a manner so as to prevent aspiration of blood blocking respiratory
passage.

G For fixing criminal liability on a doctor or surgeon, the standard of
negligence required to be proved should be so high as can be described
as "gross negligence" or recklessness". It is not merely lack of necessary
care, attention and skill. The decision of the House of Lords in R. v.
Adomako (Supra) relied upon on behalf of the doctor elucidates the said
H legal position and contains following observations :-
SURESH GUPTA v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 333
"Thus a doctor cannot be held criminally responsible for patient's A
death unless his negligence or incompetence showed such disregard
for life and safety of his patient as to amount to a crime against
the State."

Thus, when a patient agrees to go for medical treatment or surgical B
operation, every careless act of the medical man cannot be termed as
'criminal'. It can be termed 'criminal' only when the medical man exhibits
a gross lack of competence or inaction and wanton indifference to his
patient's safety and which is found to have arisen from gross ignorance
or gross negligence. Where a patient's death results merely from error of
judgment or an accident, no criminal liability should be attached to it. Mere C
inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate care and caution might
create civil liability but would not suffice to hold him criminally liable.

This approach of the courts in the matter of fixing criminal liability
on the doctors, in the course of medical treatment given by them to their D
patients, is necessary so thar the hazards of medical men in medical
profession being exposed to civil liability, may not unreasonably extend
to criminal liability and expose them to risk oflanding themselves in prison
for alleged criminal negligence.

For every mishap or death during medical treatment, the medical man E
cannot be proceeded against for punishment. Criminal prosecutions of
doctors without adequate medical opinion pointing to their guilt would be
doing great disservice to the community at large because ifthe courts were
to impose criminal liability on hospitals and doctors for everything that
goes wrong, the doctors would be more worried about their own safety than F
giving all best treatment to their patients. This would lead to shaking the
mutual confidence between the doctor and patient. Every mishap or
misfortune in the hospital or clinic of a doctor is not a gross act of
negligence to try him for an offence of culpable negligence.

No doubt in the present case, the patient was a young man with no G
history of any heart ailment. The operation to be performed for nasal
deformity was not so complicated or serious. He was not accompanied even
by his own wife during the operation. From the medical opinions produced
by the prosecution, the cause of death is stated to be 'not introducing a
cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper size as to prevent aspiration of blood H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A from the wound in the respiratory passage'. This act attributed to the
doctor, even if accepted to be true, can be described as negligent act as
there was lack of due care and precaution. For this act of negligence he
may be liable in tort but his carelessness or want of due attention and skill
cannot be described to be so reckless or grossly negligent as to make him
B criminally liable.

Between civil and criminal liability of a doctor causing death of his
patient the court has a difficult task of weighing the degree of carelessness
and negligence alleged on the part of the doctor. For conviction of a doctor
for alleged criminal offence, the standard should be proof of recklessness
C and deliberate wrong doing i.e. a higher degree of morally blameworthy
conduct.

To convict, therefore, a doctor, the prosecution has to come out with
a case of high degree of negligence on the part of the doctor. Mere lack
D of proper care, precaution and attention or inadvertence might create civil
liability but not a criminal one. The courts have, therefore, always insisted
in the case of alleged criminal offence against doctor causing death of his
patient during treatment, that the act complained against the doctor must
show negligence or rashness of such a higher degree as to indicate a mental
state which can be described as totally apathetic towards the patient. Such
E gross negligence alone is punishable.
See the following concluding observations of the learned authors in
their book on medical negligence under the title 'Errors, Medicine and the
Law' [by Alan Merry and Alexander McCall Smith at pg. 247-248]. The
F observations are apt on the subject and a useful guide to the courts in
dealing with the doctors guilty of negligence leading to death of their
patients :-

"Criminal punishment carries substantial moral overtones. The
doctrine of strict liability allows for criminal conviction in the
G absence of moral blameworthiness only in very limited
circumstances. Conviction of any substantial criminal offence
requires that the accused person should have acted with a morally
blameworthy state of mind. Recklessness and deliberate wrong
doing, levels four and five are classification of blame, are
H normally blameworthy but any conduct falling short of that should
SURESH GUPTA v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 335

not be the subject of criminal liability. Common-l~w systems have A
traditionally only made negligence the subject of criminal sanction
when the level of negligence has been high a standard traditionally
described as gross negligence .....: .................. .

B

Blame is a powerful weapon. When used appropriately and
according to morally defensible criteria, it has an indispensable
role in human affairs. Its inappropriate use, however, distorts
tolerant and constructive relations between people. Some of life's C
misfortunes are accidents for which nobody is morally responsible.
Others are wrongs for which responsibility is diffuse. Yet others
are instances of culpable conduct, and constitute grounds for
compensation and at times, for punishment. Distinguishing between
these various categories requires careful, morally sensitive and D
scientifically informed analysis."

After examining all the medical papers accompanying the complaint,
we find that no case of recklessness or gross negligence has been made
out against the doctor to compel him to face the trial for offence under
section 304A of the IPC. As a result of the discussion aforesaid on the E
factual and legal aspect, we allow this appeal and by setting aside the
impugned orders of the Magistrate and of the High Court, quash the
criminal proceedings pending against the present doctor who is accused
and appellant before us.
F
V.S.S. Appeal allowed.

1