The court ruled that the petitioners failed to prove medical negligence, as the enquiry report exonerated the doctors from liability.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition claim compensation to the tune of Rs.25 lacs from the respondents on account of alleged medical negligence which resulted into the death of Mst. Taheena Quasar, wife of the petitioner No.1 and mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the said Taheena Quasar during her pregnancy got admitted in SMGS Hospital, Jammu on the advice given by respondent No.7-Dr.Sadana Gynaecologist. The deceased has undergone caesarean operation on 1st of July, 2003 but her condition was not good after the operation, as a result, the patient was referred to Government Medical College, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu for further treatment and was admitted in ICU and given treatment. The patient did not respond to the treatment and died on 01.07.2003 in the hospital. The petitioners being not satisfied with the conduct of doctors and the treatment provided to the patient approached the Minister for Health and Medical Education, as a result, the Principal Government Medical College, Jammu constituted a Committee of Chairman and three doctors from different departments to enquire into the complaint of the petitioners. The Committee constituted for the purpose submitted its report to the Principal GMC, Jammu vide communication No. SUJ/2000/717 dated 13.10.2003. The report of the Committee itself reveals the negligence on the part of the doctors who attended the patient during and post operation is the plea of the petitioners. It is submitted that the doctors failed to discharge their duties in the manner they should have performed. The high degree of negligence of the doctors is revealed. The petitioners submit that the death of their near one has deprived the petitioners of the affection of the deceased. It is also submitted that the respondent No.7 had assured the petitioner that she will participate in the operation but had gone on leave on 1st July, 2003.

3. The objections stand filed by the respondents. As per the respondents, there is no negligence on the part of the doctors while treating the patient and they have performed their duties as required by them. The respondents had provided necessary treatment to the patient but she could not improve and died natural death. The report submitted by the Committee does not indicate any negligence on the part of the doctors who treated the patient. The respondent No.7 in her objections had submitted that the respondent was availing the summer vacation during the relevant time and had not promised that she will perform the surgery herself. The respondent No. 5 has also submitted that she has not been indicted by the enquiry Committee in its report submitted to the respondent No.3. She was not associated with the enquiry. The respondent No.6 has also denied that any negligence was committed by the respondent while attending the patient.

4. Mr. K. Nirmal Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the respondents failed to discharge the duties as required of them while treating the patient. The negligence of the doctors in providing proper treatment resulted into the death of the patient. The enquiry report submitted by the Committee also reveals that there was negligence on the part of the respondents in providing due treatment to the patient. He has also invited the attention of the court to the enquiry report wherein it is mentioned that one of the sponge remained inside the abdominal cavity which was later on taken out. This itself shows the high degree of negligence on the part of the doctors while treating the patient.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable in a case like the present one, more so when the report of the Committee which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioners to agitate their cause has not held the respondents guilty. The respondents were not associated with the enquiry as such the same in any case c