This Is Not A Case Of Simple Medical Negligence But A Systematic Attempt To Mint More Money | Gujarat HC Denies Bail To Doctor Accused Of Performing Forced Angioplasties To Claim Govt Funds
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice M. R. Mengdey has dismissed the application seeking regular bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court held that the case involved grave allegations concerning abuse of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) and determined that a prima facie case existed against the applicant. The Court directed that no case for exercising judicial discretion in favour of the applicant had been made out, and hence, the bail application stood dismissed.
The application was filed by a qualified cardiologist who had been arrested on 13 November 2024 in connection with FIR No. 11191020240478 registered at Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad City. The FIR, lodged by a civil surgeon acting on behalf of the state, pertained to alleged offences under Sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 340(1), 318, and 61 of the BNSS.
According to the applicant, a medical camp had been organized at Borisana village on 10 November 2024, where 89 patients presented with various health concerns. Following screening, 19 patients were referred to Khyati Hospital for further examination. Of these, 7 patients were advised to undergo angioplasty. Two patients subsequently died following post-procedure complications.
The applicant contended that all angioplasty procedures were authorized under the PMJAY scheme, which required that only cases with arterial blockages above 70% could qualify. Reports were duly forwarded and approvals granted by the competent authority before procedures commenced. The applicant asserted that the relatives of the deceased had not lodged complaints and the FIR was state-initiated.
Further, it was argued that several patients who declined to undergo the procedure were allowed to leave, negating the claim that individuals were coerced. The hospital also purportedly bore the cost for one deceased patient who did not fall under the scheme. The applicant pointed to adherence to post-procedural protocols and the presence of independent expert opinions validating the procedures.
The applicant claimed the investigation had been biased, with supplemental witness statements contradicting initial versions. Reference was made to judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts to support the contention that there was no ground for continuing custody.
In opposition, the prosecution argued that the matter was not mere negligence but part of a premeditated scheme to exploit the PMJAY scheme. It was asserted that patients were misled into believing they had life-threatening conditions requiring immediate intervention, and several underwent angioplasty without necessity. The State claimed a pattern of conduct aimed at financial gain.
The victims’ counsel echoed these allegations, asserting that unwarranted procedures were performed solely to obtain reimbursement under the scheme. The complainants cited fabricated reports, dual stent insertions, and manipulation of documentation.
The Court recorded that “the present is a case of classic example of the abuse of the scheme floated by the Government for the welfare of the general public.” It stated, “The PMJAY scheme…has been allegedly misused in the present case for fulfilling materialistic ambitions of a few.”
In evaluating witness statements, the Court noted, “some of the witnesses were having no complaints with regard to any heart related ailments and they had attended the camp at Borisana village with the complaints which had nothing to do with heart… However, they were wrongfully advised to undergo cardiogram and angiography.”
The Court further stated, “The witnesses…have categorically stated that having expressed their desire not to undergo any procedure, they were heavily persuaded by the present applicant to undergo the procedure of angioplasty or else they were facing the risk of their death.”
Analyzing expert opinions from the U.N. Mehta Institute for Cardiology & Research Centre, the Court recorded, “The patient required only one stent to be inserted. However, two stents were inserted in his body unnecessarily.” In another instance, “the patient’s condition was required to be managed medically i.e., with medicines. Despite the same, the procedure of angioplasty was wrongfully advised.”
In the case of a deceased patient, the Court noted, “There is no post procedure ECG attached with the file. No post procedure cardiologist note could be found.”
Concerning documentation, the Court observed, “The reports of angiography were prepared in the handwriting of the present applicant… those reports were incorrect and manipulated.”
It also recorded, “The expert body of the U N Mehta Institute has clearly opined in case of some of the patients that either no procedure of angioplasty was necessary to be performed or only one stent was required to be inserted.”
The Court concluded, “The involvement of the present applicant in the present offence cannot be ruled out at this stage… the material available on record indicates a strong prima facie case against the present applicant.”
In its concluding remarks, the Court determined that, upon evaluation of the entire record, no case had been made out to justify the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the applicant.
Consequently, the application was dismissed. Justice M. R. Mengdey noted that it was not possible at the current stage to arrive at a conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was not made out.
The Court further observed that the sequence of events reflected the grave nature of the offence. It was found that seven patients had been compelled to undergo angioplasty procedures against their will and, in certain instances, without any medical necessity.
The Court also recorded that the post-procedural care was inadequate and that no specialist was available to manage potential emergencies following the interventions. Summing up the findings, the Court stated that the case did not involve mere medical negligence but amounted to a systematic attempt to extract financial gain from the Government under the PMJAY scheme.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jal Soli Unwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. N. Limbachia and Mr. Nishith K. Joshi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Ankit V. Dixit, Mr. Rajeshkumar S. Mishra, and Mr. Hardik Dave, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Prashant v. State of Gujarat
Case Number: R/CR.MA/6649/2025
Bench: Justice M. R. Mengdey
[Read/Download order]
