The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between negligence in medical procedures and negligence in providing post-procedure care, leading to the award of compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner as Compensation and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the 4th respondent.)

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by a mother seeking for compensation from the respondents for the physical pain and mental agony underwent by her for a period of nearly nine months after delivering a child in the 3rd respondent hospital, due to the alleged negligence on the part of the respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was admitted in the 3rd respondent hospital on 4.11.2005 and she delivered a baby boy on the same day at about 12.30 PM. The 4th respondent doctor performed the delivery and she had to use the forceps, since there was a last minute complication and it required stitches. From 5.11.2005 onwards, puss was oozing from the surgical scars and the petitioner was experiencing difficulty in urinating and defecating. On 9.11.2005, the stitches were undone by the 4th respondent and she redid the stitches on the same day.

3. The situation did not improve for the petitioner and on 10.11.2005, Dr. Ilanchezian examined the petitioner and he used catheter to remove the puss and it was informed that the said doctor will perform the second surgery. The further case of the petitioner is that the situation was not improving for the petitioner and the puss was oozing and dribbling down the legs and she was undergoing extreme pain and hardship. Since there was no progress till 15.11.2005, the husband of the petitioner decided to get the petitioner discharged from the 3rd respondent hospital. The 4th respondent informed that the petitioner has to wait for the second surgery to be performed by Dr. Ilanchezian and since he was not readily available, the petitioner was asked to wait. However, the husband of the petitioner was not able to take it anymore and he insisted for the discharge of the petitioner and the petitioner was discharged on 16.11.2005.

4. The petitioner was thereafter rushed to a private hospital and at which point of time, the petitioner was informed that her rectum had been injured due to the use of forceps and since it has not been stitched and treated properly, it got infected. Immediately, steps were taken to perform a surgery. The private doctor informed the petitioner that a three stage surgery would be needed to perfectly address the problem.

5. The first surgery was performed on 20.11.2005. Thereafter, the left leg of the petitioner began to swell and hence, the petitioner was admitted in the vascular care centre for nearly 15 days. The petitioner had to wait till the swelling subsided. Ultimately, the second surgery was performed during May 2006 and the third surgery was performed during July 2006.

6. In view of the above facts, the petitioner claims to have spent nearly Rs. 1.5 Lakhs towards surgery expenses and she was also forced to spend money towards medicine, rent and travel expenses. That apart, the petitioner was not able to take care of her new born child for nearly nine months. In view of the same, the petitioner has sought for compensation against the respondents and she has also sought for taking action against the 4th respondent for her negligence in performing the operation. The second limb of the relief sought for by the petitioner becomes infructuous since the 4th respondent died during the pendency of this Writ Petition. Hence, this Court has to consider only the issue of negligence and the consequent payment of compensation.

7. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder :

“8. It is humbly submitted that Fourth Respondent herein was leave 13.11.2005. Another Gynaecologist namely Dr. Vijayanthi found that the wound of the patient again broken dow