JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs:

(I) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 3 and 4 to register an FIR upon Ext.P1 complaint of the petitioner;

(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 4th respondent to seize the CCTV visuals of the petitioner’s minor son entering the RCC hospital, visuals of the treatment given to the minor boy at the Casualty and also the visuals of treatment in the pediatric ICU of the minor boy on 27-02- 2021 from 8.00 p.m. onwards:

(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 3rd respondent to form an expert medical team consisting of the District Medical Officer of Health as Convener, District Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor, Senior Government doctor in the concerned speciality as nominated by the respective District Medical Officer and Forensic expert from the nearest Medical College be constituted in terms of the Government Circular Memorandum dated 16.06.2008 to investigate into the medical negligence resulting in the death of the petitioner’s son in Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram on 27.02.2021;

(iv) to issue such other writ, direction or order as are just and necessary to the facts and circumstances of the case and this Honourable Court deems fit to grant.

The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the son of the petitioner, aged 9 ½ died while undergoing treatment at Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, on account of the negligence on the part of the Doctors who attended him. The petitioner's case is that his son Muhammed Anshid was detected with a brain tumour at the age of 1 ½ years, and he was continuing treatment at Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The child continued the treatment, and since there was considerable improvement, the child used to attend school and performed brilliantly in academics.

2. In the year 2021, the condition of the child became worse, and he was admitted to M.E.S. Medical College, Perinthalmanna, and thereupon, the petitioner was asked to take the child to Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram for specialized treatment. Accordingly, the child was taken to Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, along with a reference letter from the M.E.S. Medical College. On 25.02.2021, the petitioner and his son visited Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and met the Doctors thereon. After examination, the petitioner was asked to bring the child after two days to have a clinical test. However, on 27.02.2021, the petitioner’s son developed vomiting.

3. The petitioner had taken the son to the casualty of the Regional Cancer Centre at 8 p.m. and informed the Doctor about the said condition. It is alleged that, while attending to the child, when he was admitted to casualty, the proper procedure required for the treatment was not followed. It is claimed by the petitioner that, as the Doctor who attended the child of the petitioner was not aware of the history of the child, the petitioner conveyed to the Doctor that due to pressure developed in the brain of the child on account of the tumour, the boy has to be administered with Dexona and Mannitol injection to relieve the pressure and only after that the usual medical procedure should be done. It is stated that the petitioner has suggested the same as he had an acquaintance in this matter on account of the continuous treatment that the child has been undergoing for the past several years. However, the duty Doctors who attended the child that evening did not administer the aforesaid medicines and proceeded with the clinical procedures, and ultimately, it resulted in the death of the child of the petitioner. The complaint was submitted in such circumstances before the 3rd respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that, despite the submission of the com