Medical professionals must adhere strictly to consent protocols; deviations constitute negligence, justifying FIR registrations.

ORDER :

(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. )

The petitioner, bereaved and aggrieved, approaches this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction, seeking justice for a lamentable demise – the untimely death of his father, allegedly occasioned by medical negligence. In furtherance whereof, seeks the following prayer :

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents herein to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the complaints dated 18.06.2024 and 26-06-2024 preferred before the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by the petitioner (Annexures ‘A1’ to ‘A3’) and thereby call for a medical report/ opinion from an independent expert body/authority as to the commission of medical negligence as detained in the said complaints, in terms of the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JACOB MATHEW v. STATE OF PUNJAB and another [ (2005) 6 SCC 1 ], MARTIN F.D’SOUZA v. MOHD. ISHFAQ [ (2009) 3 SCC 1 ] and Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [ (2014) 2 SCC 1 ] (Annexures ‘B1’ to ‘B3’) and thereby take consequential steps in accordance with the principles laid down in the said cases.”

2. Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The substratum of the facts unfolds a poignant tale. The petitioner’s father late M.C. Mahadeva was diagnosed with Hiatus Hernia. During the treatment of Hiatus Hernia, develops a complication of watermelon stomach and then becomes a patient of Chronic Kidney Disease (‘CKD’). A man reliant on dialysis for survival became ensnared in the vortex of medical interventions where hope turns into horror. For a patient of CKD regular dialysis is imperative. For the purpose of dialysis, insertion of HD Catheter is again a necessity, as the problem aggravates during dialysis taking place other than through catheter. To the father of the petitioner, one Dr. Veerabhadra Gupta, in charge of dialysis facility at G.M.Hospitals, inserted HD Catheter on 19-02-2024.

4. On 29-03-2024, on consultation with the same Doctor, the Doctor suggested removing of the previously inserted HD catheter on the score that it may lead to complications in the long run and suggested insertion of a Perma Catheter which is a permanent catheter. The petitioner’s father was then advised to approach Dr. Sumanth Raj K.B., a vascular surgeon at G.M. Hospitals to take the process forward – the process of insertion of Perma Catheter. The petitioner with his family and his father met the said Doctor on 01-04-2024. The surgery for insertion of Perma Catheter was scheduled on 04-04-2024. Before commencement of the surgery, all protocols were taken including consent of the petitioner who was the son of patient, with regard to Perma Catheter procedure. The assurance, according to the averment in the petition was, it was a small procedure of insertion of a Perma Catheter and the surgery would last for about 30 minutes, but for 4 hours the surgery is said to have gone on. The consent given by the petitioner for insertion of Perma Catheter was to be on the right side, but the procedure that was done on the father of the petitioner was a left Catheter insertion. This change was never intimated to the petitioner. Therefore, what was taken as consent was insertion of Perma Catheter on the right side, but what was done as procedure was on the left side.

5. Post-surgery, the father of the petitioner was torm