Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. On perusal of the complaint, revealed that the respondent's daughter fell ill due to fever. Therefore, she was taken to the hospital owned by the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not there and nurse only treated the patient. They administered injection and prescribed paracetamol tablet. They also administered IV fluid to the patient. Immediately, the fever got reduced and as such the patient was taken to home by the respondent. Once again, in the early morning of the next day, again she suffered with high fever. Therefore, once again she was taken to the petitioner's hospital. At that juncture, the petitioner had come and suggested to take the patient to a higher hospital since he had no such facility to treat the patient. Further, there was no ambulance available and as such, in the humanitarian ground, the petitioner himself had taken the patient in his car to the hospital. On the way to hospital, the ambulance came and as such, the patient was shifted to ambulance for giving https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis first aid. Unfortunately, on the way to hospital by the ambulance, she died and the duty doctor of the Government hospital reported that she was brought dead.

6. The crux of the allegation alleged by the respondent is that the petitioner was not there in the hospital while his daughter was given treatment. Even according to the respondent, the patient was treated by nurse and attender. When the doctor was not available, no prudent man would agree for treatment by nurse or attender. Therefore, only on consent of the respondent, the nurse of the hospital had treated the patient. That apart, they administered only Taxim injection and prescribed paracetamol tablet. They also administered IV fluid. Immediately, the fever got reduced and the patient was taken by the respondent to his home. Therefore, no role was played by the petitioner in this occurrence except he owned the said hospital. Even on the next day, the petitioner did not treat the patient and on his advice, the patient was taken to other hospital for better treatment. Since there was no ambulance facility, the petitioner himself had taken the patient in his car. Therefore, the petitioner did not play any role on the treatment to the respondent's daughter.

fhuzk; bjhpahj fha;r;rYf;F cz;lhd kUe;J Inj.Taxim Tab Paracetamol kw;Wk; IV Fluids midj;Jk; clnd bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ/ ,uj;jg;ghpnrhjid Kot[ Leptospirosis vd;W te;jhYk; mjw;Fz;lhd kUe;J Inj.Taxim MFk;/ nkYk; Leptospirosis-y; cldo ,wg;gpw;F tha;gg; py;iy/ gpnujg;ghpnrhjidapYk; bjspthd fhuz';fs; ,y;iy vd;W Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/ fha;rr; ypdhy; Vw;gLk; ,wg;g[fspy; 20 rjtPjk; ,wg;gf[ spy; ve;j fhuzKk; ,y;yhky; Vw;gl tha;gg; s [ s ; jhf kUj;Jt mfuhjpfspy; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt nkw;go kUj;Jth;fspd; ftdf;Fiwthnyh. jtwhd rpfpr;irapdhnyh ,we;jpUf;f tha;gg; py;iy/

9. Thus, it is clear that 'whoever caused the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act'. The non presence of the petitioner would not amount to any negligence. If the doctor was available in the hospital and failed to visit the patient, then the act of the doctor would amount to negligence. In the case on hand, the petitioner was not at all available in the hospital. He was somewhere else at the time of bringing the patient to the hospital. Even according to the respondent, the nurse and other attender only were available in the hospital. The respondent consented for treatment by the nurse. In fact, she also rightly administered the injection of Taxim and prescribed only paracetamol tablets. As per the enquiry report, it would not harm the patient at any cost and it is the correct medicine for fever. Therefore, no offence under Section 304A of IPC is made out as against the petitioner and the entire complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.