The principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied to cases of medical negligence, allowing for the determination of negligence based on apparent evidence without further probe.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. Both the appeals being directed against a common Judgment and order dated 07.12.2000 were heard analogously and are being disposed of by the present order.

2. The facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset.

The two petitioners in the writ proceeding registered as Civil Rule No. 511 of 1996 were admitted in the B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital at Hapania, West Tripura on 17.6.1996. A cataract operation was performed in the left eye of each of the petitioners in the said hospital on 18.6.1996 and they were discharged from the hospital on 21.6.1996. The petitioner No. 1 in the connected writ proceeding, i.e., Civil Rule No. 557 of 1996 was admitted in the hospital on 18.6.1996; his left eye was operated on 19.6.1996 and he was discharged on 21.6.1996. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 in the said writ proceeding was admitted in the hospital on 11.6.1996; her left eye was operated on 12.6.1996 and she was discharged on 24.6.1996 whereas the third petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 12.6.1996; her left eye was operated on 13.6.1996 and she was discharged from the hospital on 26.6.1996. According to the petitioners in both the writ petitions, their left eyes, on which operations were performed in the hospital were permanently damaged due to an infection suffered in the hospital. Accordingly, they have filed the writ petitions in question alleging violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and seeking, inter alia, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh) each for such violation.

The learned Single Judge after hearing the writ petitions by a judgment and order dated 07.12.2000 came to the conclusion that the left eye of each of the five petitioners were damaged on account of infection suffered due to the operation performed in the hospital and that the said event amounted to a gross violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge took the further view that the writ petitioners would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) each in addition to cost of litigation, which was quantified at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) in favour of each of the petition Rs. Aggrieved by the conclusions reached and the award of compensation made, the present appeals have been filed by the State.

3. We have heard Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate, assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners').

4. Mr. Saha, the learned senior Govt. Advocate, Tripura appearing for the appellant State has argued that the present writ petitions raised several disputed questions of fact which were not appropriate for adjudication in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to learned counsel, whether the infections suffered by the petitioners occurred during their stay in the hospital or after their release; whether there was any negligence on the part of the respondents leading to the infection and what was the exact damage suffered by the petitioners for award of compensation, are all questions which are disputed and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has gone clearly wrong in deciding the aforesaid questions in the writ petitions filed. According the learned counsel, the grievances of the petitioners should have been left for consideration by the appropriate forum on the basis of oral and documentary evidence that may have been addressed by the parties. Continuing, learned counsel has argued that hospital infection, in varying proportions, is a normal feature in health care facilities provided and by referring to certain literature, which have been enclosed to the counter-affidavit of the respondents, learned counsel has argued that no negligence can be attributed to the respondents. In any case,