J U D G M E N T

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. The appellant has instituted this ‗Letters Patent Appeal‘ in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Lahore, as applicable to the Delhi High Court, read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Courts Act, 19961, against the impugned Judgment dated 06 February 2019, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby a Writ Petition instituted by him bearing WP(C) No. 7097/2013 seeking Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction to quash the order dated 26 April 2013 passed by the respondent No.1 and also seeking disciplinary action against the respondent No.3 and for cancellation of his registration as Medical Practitioner or debar from his medical practice on account of negligence leading to the death of his wife, was dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The appellant is about 80 years of age and he grieves that his wife about 67 year of age died due to medical negligence at the hands of respondent no. 3. It is stated that his wife had been suffering from ‗Brain Tumor‘ and had been under medical treatment of respondent No.3 since 2003, who operated upon her for the first time on 03 November 2003; and thereafter she remained under his follow-up treatment. In 2008, she was again advised to undergo ‗Tumor Excision Surgery‘ by the respondent No.3, and operated on 10 November 2008 and the follow-up treatment continued under his supervision. It is stated that the appellant with his wife went to the respondent No.3 on 28 April 2011 for regular quarterly check-up and his wife was advised to undergo surgery urgently by the respondent No.3 and heeding to his advice, the operation was performed on 07 May 2011 at the

1 LPA

respondent No.4 Hospital but certain unexplained post-surgical complications ensued, and eventually his wife passed away on 31 May

2011.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that respondent No.3 had operated upon his wife without conducting a fresh MRI, and thus he lodged a complaint dated 07 June 2011 with the respondent No.4 Hospital and in response the respondent No.4 Hospital sent a letter dated 29 June 2011 to the appellant inter alia stating that ‗all necessary investigations needed to assess the patient were done‘ and his wife was posted for surgery after obtaining required clearances and obtaining the necessary consent. Not satisfied, the appellant sent a complaint dated 21 July 2011 to the Delhi Medical Council2/ respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action against the respondent No.3 for medical negligence in the treatment of his wife resulting in her untimely death.

4. It is stated that as the DMC was unresponsive to his repeated reminders, he was constrained to prefer an application under the Right to Information Act, 20053 on 23 November 2011, in response to which the DMC vide letter dated 29 November 2011 informed him that his complaint was taken up for consideration before the Executive Committee of the DMC and it was directed that a specialist in the field of surgery be co-opted as an expert member and the matter would be taken up for further deliberation. The respondent No.3 was then called

2 DMC

3 RTI

upon by the DMC vide letter dated 26 December 2011 to submit his statement of defence in response to the complaint by the appellant, which was submitted by him on 09 January 2012 inter alia stating that the MRI test was not done considering the nature of tumor i.e. ‗Meningioma being a gentle tumor which grows slowly over the years‘; and that the patient was seriously ill, and a written and informed consent regarding the benefits & risks involved in the surgery was taken from the appellant, and only then was the patient cleared for surgery after consultation with the Physician, Anesthetist and Ophthalmologist.

5. Suffice to state that eventually the DMC passed an order dated 30 August 2012 holding that no case of medical negligence was made out against the respondent No.3 in the treatment of his wife, and the patient died due to ‗known complications associated with surger