Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 279
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Rani - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Public Welfare Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 368 of 2020
Decided On : 06-05-2020
For the Petitioner:M. Jothibasu, Advocate. For the Respondents:K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by C.M. Marichellaiah Prabhu, Additional Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Compensation - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - [ARTICLE 226] - [MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE] - [Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the petitioner and the respondents, highlighting the need for proper admissibility, proof, genuineness, and relevancy of the documents. It emphasized the requirement for evidence and cross-examination, concluding that the proper forum for relief was the civil court and not the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compensation for medical negligence after being informed of being HIV positive at a government hospital, but subsequent tests at other facilities showed conflicting results. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the proper forum for relief was the civil court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented required proper admissibility, proof, genuineness, and relevancy, and emphasized the need for evidence and cross-examination. It concluded that the proper forum for relief was the civil court and not the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the conflicting test results for HIV, the admissibility and reliability of the presented evidence, and the appropriate forum for seeking relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper admissibility, proof, genuineness, and relevancy of the documents, and highlighted the requirement for evidence and cross-examination. It concluded that the proper forum for relief was the civil court and not the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed with the observation that the proper forum for relief was the civil court and not the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was permitted to take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period of filing and pendency of the petition from the calculation of the period of limitation.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the medical negligence, within the stipulated period.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed in the nature of mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the medical negligence.
2. The petitioner, Rani, W/o.Rajkumar, 2/50, New Street, Sengundrapuram Village, Virudhunagar Taluk and District, in her affidavit, had stated that on 29.07.2013, she went to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Virudhunagar, for uterus test. She was advised to undergo blood test. Blood samples were taken. The officials attached with the hospital informed the petitioner that blood result indicated that she was HIV positive. Her name was also entered in the HIV patients register. The Doctors advised her to take continuous treatment. She was also advised to bring all her family members for test. It must be pointed out that she is married and has two children. The petitioner did not come back to the hospital thereafter.
3. On the other hand, her sister had taken her for further blood test at Yoga Clinical Lab, Thirunagar, Madurai on 31.07.2013. The blood test result showed that it was HIV non-reactive. She conducted blood test again on 01.08.2013 in Christian Mission Hospital, Madurai. She claims that once again the result was HIV non-reactive. She therefore claimed that the hospital authorities in Government Headquarters Hospital, Virudhunagar, had acted in a negligent manner. She then lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District on 04.09.2013, to take action against the persons, who issued such certificate. She sent a representation on 16.09.2013 to the fourth respondent/the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Health and Family Welfare Department, Virudhunagar. She sent another complaint on 17.10.2013 to the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. She also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She lodged a further complaint on 04.12.2013 before the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar. She then filed Crl.MP.SR.No.10189/2013 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar. The said petition was returned stating that sanction to prosecute is required.
4. She further submitted representations on 13.01.2014 and 24.02.2014 seeking sanction to prosecute the Government servants. She also filed further representations under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She then again filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar. She then received a letter on 08.05.2014 from the fifth respondent/the Superintendent/Chief Medical Officer, Government Headquarters Hospital, Virudhunagar, calling upon her to once again submit herself to blood test and then they would send the blood samples to the State Reference Laboratory, Tirunelveli for further analysis. Her petition filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., numbered as Crl.M.P.No.2609 of 2014 was dismissed on 26.05.2014. She then filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in Crl.O.P.No.23467 of 2014 before this Court, but on 18.09.2018, she withdrew the same with liberty to approach appropriate forum. She sent a further representation under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She received some information regarding the names of the persons, who were working at the time when the blood sample was taken in Government Headquarters Hospital, Virudhunagar. Finally, she had filed the present writ petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent/ the Superintendent/Chief Medical Officer, Government Headquarters Hospital, Virudhunagar, it was stated that the petitioner came for health checkup on 29.07.2013 and her blood samples were taken and it was found that s
