IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Rajamanickam - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21603 of 2009
Decided On : 13-09-2022
Medical Negligence - Compensation - Article 226 - [MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE] - [MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, COMPENSATION] - [Article 226]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to take action against the doctors and others responsible for the death of his wife and child in the womb and to pay compensation of Rs.30 lakhs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no medical negligence in the death of the petitioner's wife, but negligence was found in the handling of human body parts during autopsy. The court awarded compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved medical negligence in the treatment provided to the petitioner's wife and the handling of human body parts during autopsy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court appointed an Enquiry Committee to investigate the medical negligence and handling of human body parts. Despite finding no medical negligence, the Committee recommended compensation for the mishandling of human body parts, which the court upheld.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the State was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to take appropriate action against the Doctors and other persons responsible for the death of petitioner's wife and child in the womb and also to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioner as a relief to loss his wife and child in the womb.)
1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take appropriate action against the Doctors and other persons, who are responsible for the death of his wife and child in the womb and also to direct the respondents to pay Rs.30 lakhs as compensation.
2. This Court, by an order, dated 26/2/2021, has passed the following order:-
The Petitioner seeks compensation for the death of his wife, who had been admitted at the Kudavasal Government Hospital in connection with her pregnancy.
2. The facts of this case are undoubtedly tragic. While at the Kudavasal Government Hospital, the Petitioner's wife developed complications and was shifted to multiple hospitals such as the Tiruvarur Medical College and Hospital and the Thanjavur Government Hospital. Eventually, she died on 15.02.2009. A little earlier, the unborn child in womb, also did not survive.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there was medical negligence not only in the mode of treatment provided to the Petitioner's wife but also in respect of the inadequate facilities and infrastructure that were available at the Kudavasal Government Hospital. As a consequence, she contends that it became necessary to shift the Petitioner's wife from one hospital to another and the medical condition of the Petitioner's wife worsened as a result thereof. Therefore, she contends that this is a clear case of medical negligence not only in the abject failure to provide adequate medical treatment, but also as regards the failure to provide requisite facilities at the hospital concerned. Learned counsel also contends, in this regard, that the patient was shifted for a distance of about 60 kms from the Tiruvarur Medical College and Hospital to the Thanjavur Government Hospital, while she was in a critical condition and that this contributed to her death.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that adequate medical facilities were available at the hospital at which the Petitioner's wife was treated and that the death of the Petitioner's wife occurred on account of medical complications associated with pregnancy which arise in a small proportion of cases.
5. I had called for the original medical records during one of the previous hearings and upon examining such records, an order dated 22.12.2020 was issued recording, in relevant part, as under:
“2. The Petitioner's wife, who was in the final stages of pregnancy, died in hospital. Out of the organs that were harvested for post-mortem purposes, the heart and lungs were later reported to be missing. I had called for and examined the original medical records. From the discharge summary, I noticed that the deceased patient developed pulmonary oedema, which is fluid collection in the lungs, and that lasix was administered intravenously to resuscitate the patient. Such efforts failed and she had to be given ventilatory support and eventually died of cardiopulmonary arrest. Nonetheless, a subsequent communication is on file stating that the missing heart and lungs did not materially impact the determination of cause of death.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Petitioner's wife, namely, the deceased patient, was very anaemic and her blood pressure was much below normal when she was first admitted at the Kodavasal Government Hospital. Thereafter, she was admitted in the Thiruvarur Hospital and shifted to two hospitals in Thanjavur, including the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. With regard to the cause of death, she submits
The main legal point established in the judgment is that even in the absence of medical negligence, compensation can be awarded for mishandling of human body parts during autopsy.
The court ruled that the petitioners failed to prove medical negligence, as the enquiry report exonerated the doctors from liability.
Disputed claims of medical negligence involving complex factual inquiries and the assessment of evidence are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and should be adjudicated before a Civil Court.
The right to health is integral to the right to life under Article 21, necessitating timely and adequate medical care, which was grossly violated in the case of the deceased, leading to her avoidable....
Point of Law : Under the public law remedy as a palliative measure, Court may award appropriate compensation and that the compensation awarded will be in addition to the claim for damages or compensa....
Absence of doctor in government Primary Health Centre during labour, coupled with nurses leaving patient unattended before delayed referral, constitutes institutional negligence violating right to li....
No negligence established; compensation denied for maternal death.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.