Bombay High Court
Usha Jagannath Kedar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 26 October, 2021
Author: S. G. Mehare
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 947-WP.5017-14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
947 WRIT PETITION NO.5017 OF 2014
USHA JAGANNATH KEDAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Jaware Vishnu M.
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. B. Yawalkar.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 26.10.2021 PER COURT :-
1. Pursuant to our order dated 02.09.2021, we had expected the learned advocate for the petitioner to resort to indepth research so as to assist the Court in making out a case or as to what can be done to assess that there has been medical negligence on the part of the operating surgeons, who are alleged to have damaged the uterus and the bladder of the petitioner while performing a C-section delivery. No doubt, the life of the petitioner as well as the child have been saved. ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2021 04:32:21 :::
2 947-WP.5017-14.odt
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that as the uterus was removed, the petitioner lost her right to be a mother. However, he is not aware as to how many children have been born to the petitioner.
3. We do find that after the surgery was performed on 26.12.2012, the petitioner had to be admitted in several hospitals and was taking treatment for almost one and half year. Naturally, the petitioner is aggrieved by the physical and mental agonies and the expenditure that her husband had to incur for her treatment.
4. Besides, citing a judgment delivered in Public Interest Litigation, filed by Pratibha Shinde and others Vs. Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 3 AIR Bom. Reporter 226 , he has not made any research to assess as to whether there is any provision of law which would enable the Constitution of Committee of a Doctors to tender an expert opinion, keeping in view that the Judges of the High Court are not expected to draw an inference, without expertise or knowledge in medicine and ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2021 04:32:21 ::: 3 947-WP.5017-14.odt surgery, as regards any act of negligence purportedly committed by surgeons.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner seeks more time to research. In Pratibha Shinde (supra), considering the Covid Pandemic, a three members' Committee was formed, on the basis of which, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- were granted to the L.Rs of the patient Malati Nehete, who suffered death due to the Covid infection and on account of lack of proper treatment and her body was said to be lying near a lavatory for a few days.
6. Keeping larger interest of the society in focus, we do feel that this case needs to be dealt with delicately so as to ensure that if there has been an act of medical negligence, the petitioner should be compensated. However, we cannot rush to a conclusion based on the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner, which appear to be more from the heart and the skeletal pleadings set out.
7. We, therefore, grant time to the learned advocate for the petitioner to research and assist us so as to consider this case in proper perspective.
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2021 04:32:21 :::
4 947-WP.5017-14.odt
8. List this petition on 26.11.2021.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) ...
vmk/-
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2021 04:32:21 :::