Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Wati vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 May, 2012
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
CWP No.19998 of 2004
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.19998 of 2004
Date of decision: 02.05.2012
Prem Wati
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present: - Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. G.S. Mann, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
1.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
*****
ALOK SINGH, J.
1. Petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to hand over the matter for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner has reported Guru Nanak Dev Government Hospital, Amritsar, for acute pain in her abdomen on 23.3.2001; same day ultrasound was done and stones were detected in uretar and she was advised immediate operation and was asked to arrange amount of ` 12,000/- for operation charges; since, petitioner was not having adequate money for operation, she was discharged from the hospital on 24.3.2011; however, again on the recommendation of NGO ' Sewa Bharti' she again reported to the hospital on 30.3.2001 and she was admitted as a poor patient for free CWP No.19998 of 2004 -2- treatment and was operated upon for removal of the stones from uretar on 31.3.2001. After discharge from the hospital, abdominal pain did not vanish and was still subsisting, therefore, petitioner went to another doctor at Amritsar Sewa Samiti (Regd.) and on the recommendation of the doctor of Amritsar Sewa Samiti, ultrasound was done on her abdomen on 9.7.2001; after seeing the ultrasound report, doctor of Amritsar Sewa Samiti has informed the petitioner that her left kidney could not be seen in the ultrasound and was found removed; on this, petitioner again approached the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital and met Dr. Jaswinder Pal Kaur Shergill-respondent No.2 and asked about the removal of her kidney. However, she was returned back after giving ` 500/- to drink the fruit juice and plenty of fluids and some of the medicines were provided to the petitioner. Meanwhile, petitioner developed ailment in her right kidney as well; on 9.10.2004, petitioner was told by the doctor of Amritsar Sewa Samiti that her left kidney has been removed in the previous surgery; petitioner has made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 19/20.10.2004 about removal of her left kidney without her consent and petitioner was made victim of human organ sale. On the complaint, inquiries were started by the police as well as by the Medical Superintendent of the Medical College, Amritsar. However, petitioner did not feel satisfied with the inquiries conducted by the police as well as the Medical Superintendent, therefore, has approached this Court by way of present petition.
3. Initially, a Division Bench of this Court has proposed to hand over the investigation in the matter to the CBI, however, on 21.3.2005, Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, CWP No.19998 of 2004 -3- made statement that in view of the pitiable condition of the petitioner and her physical incapacity, it would not be possible for her to pursue the matter with the CBI, therefore, inquiry may be got done by the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar. As per the request of Mr. Sarin, inquiry was marked to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
4. Learned District and Sessions Judge has recorded the statement of the petitioner as CW7 wherein she has stated that she went to the hospital along with her husband on 30.3.2001 and was operated for the removal of the stones on 31.3.2001; after about one month she again reported to the hospital along with her husband and again operated upon and was discharged from the hospital; however, when the pain did not subsist even after the second operation, she reported to the clinic of Amritsar Sewa Samiti where she was told that her left kidney was removed.
5. Dr. Jaswinder Pal Kaur Shergill-respondent No.2, in her statement, recorded by learned District and Sessions Judge, has stated that the petitioner was diagnosed having stones in her uretar and was operated on 28.3.2001, however, when pain did not subsist, she was again operated on 2.5.2001 during the operation her left kidney was found to be badly damaged and puss was found discharging therefrom, therefore, doctors, present in the operation theater, decided to remove the damaged kidney to save the life of the petitioner and consent of her husband was obtained; after second operation, removed left damaged kidney was handed over to the husband of the petitioner.
6. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Amrtisar, after perusing entire record and statements recorded by him has submitted his inquiry CWP No.19998 of 2004 -4- report dated 18.5.2005. Learned District and Sessions Judge has opined that petitioner was operated upon twice. He has further opined that records and evidence collected by him were not found to be manipulated one rather found to be genuine. It was further observed by learned District and Sessions Judge that during the second operation, left kidney was found to be infected, badly damaged and source of puss, which was passing through the urinary track and was main source of acute abdominal pain, therefore, damaged kidney was removed by the team of doctors to save the life of the petitioner with the consent of her husband and removed damaged kidney was kept in the container and was handed over to her husband. Learned District and Sessions Judge has further opined that removed kidney was completely infected and damaged and was main source of puss, therefore, its removal was must to save the life of the petitioner.
7. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has not denied the fact that petitioner has reported the hospital having acute pain in her abdomen and was diagnosed having stones in her left urinary track and kidney; she was operated upon for removal of the stones from the uretar and left kidney at the first instance; thereafter when pain did not subsist doctors again decided to perform surgery hence she was again operated upon for the kidney ailment.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, since petitioner was diagnosed having stones in her uretar and left kidney and during the second operation left kidney was found damaged and source of puss, therefore, removal of left kidney cannot be said to be outcome of human organ trade scam. We do not find any reason to take a contrary view to CWP No.19998 of 2004 -5- the view taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, nothing survives in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Dismissed accordingly.
10. However, Mr. Alok Jain, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has stated that the petitioner would be free to take treatment from the Government Medical College and Hospital, Amritsar, free of costs.
(M.M. Kumar) Acting Chief Justice (Alok Singh) Judge May 02, 2012 R.S.