Point of Law :
In pursuit of the welfare ideal the Government may enter into many commercial and other activities which have no relation to the traditional concept of governmental activity in exercise of sovereign power. Just as running of passenger buses for the benefit of general public is not a sovereign function, similarly the running of a hospital, where the members of the general public can come for treatment, cannot also be regarded as being an activity having a sovereign character. This being so, the State would be vicariously liable for the damages which may become payable on account of negligence of its doctors or other employees

1. It is opt to begin this judgment with following statement of law made by Supreme Court in GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. V. GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA (AIR 1980 SC 1896):

"146. In the second chapter of our sumup, the first thing we decide is that Article 226, however restrictive in practice, is a power wide enough, in all conscience, to be a friend in need when the summons comes in a crisis from a victim of injustice; and, more importantly, this extraordinary reserve power is unsheathed to grant final relief without necessary recourse to a remand What the tribunal may, in its discretion, do, the High Court too, under Article 226, can, if facts compel, do.........

(Emphasis supplied)

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health, Government Pleader for Home and Sri Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent.

3. According to petitioner, his mother Puli Veera Laxmi died on 7.3.2002 in C.K.M. Government Maternity Hospital, Warangal as she was complaining of prolapsed uterus. Having regard to the seriousness of the ailment, surgery was performed on 6.3.2002 and on the same day by evening she complained stomach-ache. In the intervening night of 6/7-3-2002 at about 2.00 A.M, another surgery was performed. However, immediately there after she was declared dead. Petitioner suspected negligence of the Doctors for death of his mother and lodged a complaint with the police. Petitioner and his family members also organized protest at the hospital. On 8.3.2002 post-mortem was performed by Dr C.Rami Reddy and Dr K Sudhakar Reddy, Professors, Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College. They opined that death was caused due to post operative hemorrhage from the pedicles consequent to Hysterectomy operation.

4. During the investigation, on the request of the Superintendent of Police, Medical Board was constituted to study the case file and to give their opinion as to whether there was any negligence on the part of the Doctors who performed operation. Medical Board report suggests negligence by the Doctors in attending to the patient. Petitioner prays to issue directions to first respondent to award compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the petitioner due to death of his mother on account of medical negligence.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that mother of the petitioner would have survived if only proper treatment was administered to her and death occurred only because of the negligence which is apparent from the report of the Medical Board and the orders issued by the Director of Medical Education dated 2.12.2004 placed on record as Ex.P-5. As death occurred due to negligence of the Hospital, petitioner is entitled to compensation for untimely death of his mother. He would submit that his father died at young age leaving the mother to take care of the petitioner and his sister. He further submits that petitioner belongs toddy tapper community. His mother was looking after four toddy trees and was also working as agricultural labour to eke-out living; that she died at very young age of petitioner and his sister and on account of her death, petitioner lost both parents at young age which caused grave hard ship and suffering. In support of his contention that writ Court can award compensation in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.NAMBI NARAYANAN Vs SIBY MATHEWS AND OTHERS (2018 Law Suit (SC) 89) and decision of this Court in MUKKAMULA ANURADHA Vs PRINICIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINORITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF A.P (2019 (1) ALD 408). He further submits that until 2007 petitioner was not aware of the medical negligence and he came to know only when he received notice in Criminal Petition 5477 of 2006 filed by the 5th respondent challenging taking cognizance of crime. He also submitted that alleging that no material was available to hold 5th respondent g