Madras High Court
The Director Of Primary Health Centre vs Thangapandi on 15 April, 2016
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, N.Kirubakaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.A.(MD)No.435 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
1.The Director of Primary Health Centre,
DMS, Teynampet.
2.The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Health Department,
Viswanathapuram,
Madurai - 14.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
4.The Medical Officer,
Saptur Primary Health Centre,
Saptur Post, Peraiyur Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Appellants/
Respondents
Vs.
Thangapandi ... Respondent/
Writ Petitioner
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 10.12.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.1332 of 2010.
!For Appellants ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian,
Special Government Pleader
^For Respondent ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
:JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the Government against the awarding of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation to the first respondent for the death of his wife, Kannigadevi, due to medical negligence of the appellants, when she was admitted for delivery to the fourth appellant Primary Health Centre.
2. The respondent's wife, Kannigadevi, aged about 22 years, was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Saptoor, on 01.01.2010 at about 01.00 a.m., as she developed labour pain. She was admitted in the Centre at about 02.00 a.m., by the Staff Nurse, Nirmala and she gave birth to a female child at about 03.18 a.m. There was no Doctor available in the Centre even though it is a 24 Hours Maternity Centre. About 04.00 a.m., the condition of the respondent's wife worsened as she was profusely bleeding. As the Duty Doctor/Medical Officer was not available, no decision would be taken by the Staff Nurse. The respondent's wife developed complications and therefore, at 12.00 noon, she was referred to the Government Hospital, Elumalai, where the Doctors declared her as dead at 12.20 p.m. Contending that the delay in giving treatment in time, caused the death of the respondent's wife, the respondent filed a writ petition, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only).
3. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge holding that there was no Doctor available at the time of admission for emergency treatment and due to carelessness of the Doctors and Staff Nurses, the respondent lost his wife.
4. Heard Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
5. It is an admitted fact that the respondent's wife was admitted in the fourth appellant's Primary Health Centre and she delivered a female child at 03.18 a.m on 01.01.2010. It was found by the learned Single Judge on medical records produced by the appellants that there was no Doctor available when the respondent admitted his wife in the Hospital and no proper treatment was given when the patient was bleeding profusely. The patient was referred to the Government Hospital, Elumalai only by 12.00 noon and there was a huge delay during which period, the patient was not given proper treatment, leading to death.
6. The learned Single Judge, in paragraph 11 of the order, found fault with the counter affidavit filed by the second appellant, who did not know the facts. Even according to the counter affidavit, the Doctor examined the patient in the fourth appellant's Health Centre only at 09.15 a.m. on 01.01.2010, i.e. after lapse of more than 7 hours, during which period, proper treatment should have been given. In the absence of proper treatment, serious complications had developed, resulting in the death of the respondent's wife. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the negligence on the part of the Doctors in not attending to the patient, was fully established and the death of the respondent's wife, leaving behind a female child, has to be compensated adequately by the appellants. Thus, the finding has been given that there was medical negligence on the part of the 4th appellant. In paragraph 13 of the order, it has been found that based on the counter affidavit that there was no qualified Medical Practitioner for giving the treatment and it is a clear case of dereliction of duty on the part of the Medical Officer attached to the fourth appellant's Primary Health Centre and also breach of public trust reposed on the part of the Medical Officer. When the fourth appellant's Primary Health Centre is treated as 24 Hours Maternity Centre, a Medical Officer is expected to be available or at least, on immediate call, to treat the patients who may develop complications in pre/post delivery stages.
7. The learned Single Judge referred upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in (i) Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others v. State of West Bengal and another reported in AIR 1996 SC 2426 = 1996 (4) SCC 37 wherein it has been held that even a patient cannot be denied emergency bed, due to non-availability of bed in the Government Hospital and if any such denial is made, the same would amount to violation of right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and para (9) of the above judgement is extracted as follows:
?9. The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare State at the federal level as well as at the State level. In a welfare State the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare State. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centres which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail of those facilities. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty-bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21. In the present case there was breach of the said right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 when he was denied treatment at the various government hospitals which were approached even though his condition was very serious at that time and he was in need of immediate medical attention. Since the said denial of the right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 was by officers of the State, in hospitals run by the State, the State cannot avoid its responsibility for such denial of the constitutional right of Hakim Seikh. In respect of deprivation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution the position is well settled that adequate compensation can be awarded by the court for such violation by way of redress in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. (See: Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar4; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa5; Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India6.) Hakim Seikh should, therefore, be suitably compensated for the breach of his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we fix the amount of such compensation at Rs 25,000. A sum of Rs 15,000 was directed to be paid to Hakim Seikh as interim compensation under the orders of this Court dated 22-4-1994. The balance amount should be paid by Respondent 1 to Hakim Seikh within one month.?
Further referring upon judgements in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SC 2039; (iii) Ranjit Kumar Das v. Medical Officer, ESI Hospital and others reported in III 1997 PCJ 336 (CDRC-West Bengal), the learned Judge rightly held that there was negligence on the part of the Doctors in treating the respondent's wife and therefore the appellants have to compensate the respondent and the female child for the death of the respondent's wife and further directed appellants 1 and 2 to fix the responsibility on the Doctor, who failed to take care of the respondent's wife during and after the delivery, which resulted in her death, in accordance with law. The said findings reached by the learned Single Judge are based on the counter affidavit and medical records and therefore, the same cannot be interfered with.
8. Hence, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
9. The respondent's wife died on 01.01.2010 and the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 10.12.2010. The writ appeal is pending for the past five years. The appellants are bound to pay the compensation amount forthwith as the respondent is suffering because of the death of his wife and the female child is deprived of her mother's love and affection, which is the basic right of any child right from the delivery. Therefore, the appellants are directed to pay the compensation amount to the respondent on or before 31.05.2016.
10. Call the matter on 02.06.2016 for reporting compliance.
.