Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

*********** The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the erring Medical Officers and Staff of the fourth respondent - Primary Health Centre and direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition, are as follows:-

The petitioner married one Kannigadevi, aged about 22 years, daughter of Sanjeevi and she became pregnant. She came to her mother's house for delivery as per the customary practice. On 01.01.2010, at about 01.00 AM, she developed labour pain, and therefore, she was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Saptoor. She was admitted in the said hospital at about 02.00 AM. At that time, there was no duty doctor/medical officer available, except staff nurse and Midwife, though it is a 24 hours Maternity Hospital. The petitioner's wife was not given treatment due to want of doctors and on the same day at about 03.18 AM, she gave birth to a female child. At about 04.00 AM, the condition of the petitioner's wife worsened and the petitioner along with his mother-in-law appraised the condition of the petitioner's wife to the staff nurse and asked for immediate attention. There was a profuse bleeding from 04.00 AM onwards. As the duty doctor/medical officer was not available, the staff nurse could not take any decision for further treatment. No information was given to the doctors to attend the petitioner's wife, who developed complication after giving birth to the female child. Therefore, at about 12.00 Noon, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Elumalai, and after examination, the doctors declared her as dead at 12.20 PM. The said delay in giving treatment caused the death of the petitioner's wife.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Malaykumar Ganguly v Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee reported in 2009 (9) SCC 221 and in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das reported in 2000 (2) SCC 465.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, submitted that the petitioner's wife was admitted in the Primary Health Centre, Saptoor, on 01.01.2010 at about 02.10 AM with labour pain. The staff nurse and Auxiliary Nursing Midwife conducted delivery. The mother delivered a live female baby at 03.18 AM. There was no abnormal bleeding and the patient was examined by one Doctor Mr.Jeyakrishnan at about 09.15 AM on 01.01.2010 and the patient was conscious and no undue bleeding was noticed. According to the medical records, the mother was in good health condition. However, at about 11.15 AM, the mother experienced breathing problem and the staff nurse informed the Medical Officer, who diagnosed the medical condition of the petitioner's wife as "amniotic fluid embolism" and the Medical Officer instructed the duty staff to call 108 Ambulance Service to refer the patient to the higher medical institution. Accordingly, she was referred to the Government Hospital, Usilampatti, by calling 108 ambulance at about 12.20 PM. The mother was declared to have died in transit at about 12.30 PM by Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Usilampatti, and therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the respondents. The doctor has also seen the petitioner's wife at 09.15 AM on 01.01.2010. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents further submitted that since there was no bleeding and the delivery being normal, the non-availability of the doctor at the time of delivery or subsequently is immaterial and the petitioner cannot claim compensation for the death of his wife.

11. The said fact is not denied in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent by any person, who is having personal knowledge about the facts. Even according to the counter affidavit, the doctor examined the patient only at 09.15 AM on 01.01.2010, i.e., after lapse of seven and fifteen hours. The patient, having developed undue bleeding, is required to get treatment immediately and the delay in giving treatment will be disastrous. The said fact having not been denied by the doctor or by the staff nurse, who was present in the hospital either at the time of delivery or thereafter is a serious aspect, which is noticed by this Court seriously. The version of the second respondent, who is stationed at Madurai, based on the recorded version, cannot be treated as a true version on the facts and circumstances of the case. When the time of admission and time of delivery co-relate with the version of the petitioner as well as the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the complication arose to the patient after delivery at 04.00 AM cannot be brushed aside. Thus, there is unreasonable delay in giving proper treatment by a qualified medical practitioner to the petitioner's wife, which resulted in loss of blood, due to which the petitioner's wife died at 12.20 PM on 01.01.2010. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the doctors by not attending the patient, who are expected to have constant watch and treatment, is fully established and for the death of the petitioner's wife, who left a female child has to be compensated by the respondents by paying adequate compensation on the principle of vicarious liability.

12. The issue as to when a doctor can be proceeded for medical negligence is no longer res integra in the decision in Martin F.D'Souza v. Mohd.Ishfaq reported in 2009 (2) Supreme 40, the Supreme Court held that if a doctor treated a patient with ordinary care, then anything happens to the patient, the doctor concerned cannot be blamed, unless it is established that there is a criminal negligence on the part of the doctor in a manner known to law.

13. Here, in this case, even as per the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, who is not the Medical Officer of the fourth respondent - Primary Health Centre, the doctor examined the patient/deceased, [wife of the petitioner], only at 09.15 AM on 01.01.2010 and from 2.10 AM to 09.15 AM, no medical treatment was given by a qualified medical practitioner, which is a clear case of dereliction of duty on the part of the medical officer attached to the said hospital. It is also a breach of public trust reposed on the part of the medical officer, who is responsible for the affairs of the Primary Health Centre, Saptoor.