SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 4950

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN
V. Ramar
Versus
Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, D.M.S., Teynampet, Chennai & Others
Case No : W.P.(MD)No.1242 of 2005
Decided on : 19-11-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:G.R. Swaminathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:D. Sasikumar, Government Advocate.

The obligation of the State to provide medical care under Article 21 and Article 47 of the Constitution of India, and the duty of doctors and hospitals to extend services for protecting life.

Headnote:

Medical Negligence - Compensation - Article 21, Article 47 of the Constitution of India - Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 2039) - Ranjit Kumar Das v. Medical Officer, ESI Hospital & Others, III (1997) CPJ 336 (CDRC West Bengal) - Lepine v. University Hospital Board, 1964(5) DLR (2d) 225 - Jones v. Manchester Corporation, (1952) 2 All ER 125(CA)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's daughter and grandson died due to alleged medical negligence at a Primary Health Centre. The petitioner sought compensation for the deaths.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the medical staff at the Primary Health Centre failed to provide timely and appropriate medical treatment, resulting in the deaths. The Court held the State responsible for the negligence and awarded compensation to the petitioner.

Issues: Medical negligence, duty of the State to provide medical facilities, compensation for loss of life

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the obligation of the State to provide medical care under Article 21 and Article 47 of the Constitution of India. It cited legal precedents to establish the duty of doctors and hospitals to extend services for protecting life. The Court held that failure to provide timely medical treatment constitutes a violation of the right to life. It also highlighted the need for appropriate compensation in cases of medical negligence.

Final Decision: The Court awarded the petitioner Rs.5,00,000 as compensation and directed the authorities to take appropriate action against the erring persons responsible for the incident.

Judgment :-

The petitioner is a poor coolie worker, working in a brick kiln in Vandari village. He approached this Court with this petition for a direction to the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai, the Medical Officer, Saptoor Primary Health Centre, Madurai, the District Collector, Madurai and the Joint Director, Health Department, Viswanathapuram, Madurai, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

2. Thesad story of the petitioner goes thus:-

The petitioners daughter by name Alagumayil, aged about 22 years, was married to one Paraman. As she became pregnant, as per the prevailing custom, she came to his house for delivery. At about 4.30 p.m. on 20.07.2004, she developed labour pain and therefore she was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Saptoor and got herself admitted at 4.30 p.m. At that time, there was no Duty Doctor available, except a Staff Nurse and a mid-wife. The daughter of the petitioner could not be given proper medical treatment for want of Doctors and she gave birth to a male child at about 5.45 p.m. Thereafter her condition worsened and at about 7.30 p.m., the petitioner went to the Staff Nurse and appraised her of the condition of his daughter and sought for immediate attention. The Staff Nurse prescribed certain medicines and informed the petitioner to purchase the same. In spite of his best efforts, the medicines could not be purchased and when he returned at about 10.30 p.m., there was nobody available in the Health Centre and at about 11 p.m., the child died and within the next 30 minutes, i.e. at about 11.30 p.m., the mother also died. In the circumstances, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Honble Chief Minister on 22.07.2007 for appropriate action against the persons responsible for the deaths. He was informed, by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Madurai vide his Proceedings dated 012. 2004 that an enquiry was conducted on 211. 2004 and on the basis of the enquiry, it was decided to take action against the erring Doctors and the staff. In spite of the above, no action was taken. Again, he made another complaint to the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai on 212. 2004. The petitioner also stated that due to the death of his daughter and her child, his son-in-law had also been mentally affected. He had also requested that he should be compensated in terms of Rs.5,00,000/-. As the above requests were not acceded to, he is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. In response to the notice, a counter-affidavit is filed by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Madurai dated 111. 2009. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the daughter of the petitioner came to the Primary Health Centre, Saptoor, on 16.07.2004 at about 6.30 a.m. complaining abdominal pain and she was treated by giving enema in order to prepare for delivery. As there was no labour pain required for delivery, she was asked to go back home. At about 5.20 p.m. on 20.07.2004, she was again admitted in the Centre with membrane ruptured with caput formation with prolonged labour condition. She was attended to and a male baby was delivered at 5.30 p.m. with the assistance of a Health Nurse and ANM (Auxillary Nurse Mid Wife). As the mother had been in prolonged labour pain, the baby was born with deep birth asphyxia (suffocation). In spite of all resuscitation measures, the baby died at 6.00 p.m. Subsequently at about 7.00 p.m., the mother developed profuse uterine bleeding and the Duty Staff Nurse gave Dextrose with Normal Saline and Ringer Lactate and referred the mother to Government Hospital, Thirumangalam. The condition of the mother worsened at 8.30 p.m., and again the Duty Staff Nurse insisted that the mother should be taken to higher medical institution. The condition of the mother was informed to the relatives. As the relatives have not taken the mother, she died. In the counter-affidavit, the allegation regarding the failure



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top