Marri Yadamma, widow of the deceased Janardhan Reddy, and her two minor daughters, filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay monetary compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the untimely death of her husband as a result of constitutional tort committed by the respondents in not providing accurate medical treatment to save the life which resulted in negligent death of her husband.
2. Consequent upon Rule Nisi issued by this Court, Sri Chintakayala Ramakrishna Rao, Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Secunderabad and Dr. M. Meher Prasad, who treated the deceased during the period of confinement in jail filed counter-affidavits.
3. The facts in nutshell are that late Janardhan Reddy was arrested by the Ibrahimpatnam Police on the complaint that he committed theft along with some other persons and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahim-patnam, on 10-7-1994 who remanded him in Crime Nos. 76 of 1993 and 116 of 1993 of Manchal and Ibrahimpatnam Police Stations respectively and since then the deceased was in judicial custody as under-trial prisoner No. 2799. It is further stated that surprisingly on 30-1-1995, a telegram message was received by the first petitioner from the 4th respondent - Superintendent, Central Prison, Secunderabad, to the effect that the deceased expired in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, on 30-1-1995. On receipt of the said message, the petitioners with other relatives rushed to Gandhi Hospital, on 31-1-1995 on production of the letter dated 31-1-1995 addressed by the 4th respondent to the Superntendent of Gandhi Hospital, the Superintendent of Gandhi Hospital, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and handed over the corpose to Mahdava Reddy, one of the relatives of the first petitioner. It is further averred that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of arrest by the police Ibrahimpatnam, but they came to know on enquiry that the deceased complained of severe abdomen pain and he was admitted in the Jail Hospital on 25-1-1995 and again he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital on 29-1-1995 and on 30-1-1995 strangely died in the early hours on the same day. It is further averred that at the time of his untimely death, he was 28 years of age and the death is caused due to negligence on the part of the Jail Authorities and the Jail Doctor as well, due to improper diagnose of abdomen pain. The deceased was the only earning member of the petitioners' family. In view of the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners 1 to 3 have become orphans and there are no other persons to look after them. As such they have lost the estate, consortium and love and affection. It is further averred that the attitude of the Jail Authorities is incomprehensible and irrational inasmuch as since 29-1-1995, the deceased's condition was deteriorating and the Jail Hospital authorities did not care to properly diagnosed the abdominal pain and also did not give proper treatment and in the last moments, they shifted the deceased to Gandhi Hospital on 29-1-1995 and the deceased died on 30-1-1995 due to negligence in providing medical care at the Jail Hospital. It is further stated that at the time of his arrest, the deceased was employed as tractor driver besides he was an agricultural labourer and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for their tortuous act which tantamount to violating right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, though he is a prisoner.
4. As stated earlier, the Respondent No. 4 filed counter stating that the deceased complained stomach pain on 29-1-1995 and immediately on the advise of the Jail Doctor, he was sent to Gandhi Hospital where he was admitted as inpatient and in the early hours of 30-1-1995, the hospital authorities have informed them that the deceased-prisoner expired, that intimation about the death was sent to the relatives by telegram and on their requisition, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chilkalguda, conducted inquest followed by post-mortem examination at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 30-1-1995. He further submitted that the Musheerabad Jail is provided with 20 bedded hospital with two Civil Assistant Surgeons and two Pharmacists, that the medical staff are experienced persons and the deceased was treated from time to time for different ailments which he complained of. He also submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the Jail Doctors or the Jail Authorities as the deceased was constantly under care and treatment. He also stated that the deceased died due to congestive cardiac failure associated with aortic valve disease and considered as natural death as per the post-mortem examination report and the liability to pay compensation may not arise. Therefore, the claim of compensation by the petitioners is not just and correct and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Along with counter, the respondent has filed copy of the medical treatment record in respect of the deceased. It shows that the deceased was treated in the Jail Hospital as an outpatient as well as inpatient and Dr. B. Damodar Reddy, Chief Medical Officer and Dr. M. Meher Prasad, Civil Assistant Surgeon have attended on him; that on 22-8-1994 the deceased was diagnosed for Myalgia, on 19-9-94 for pain abdomen, on 8-11-1994 body pain, on 28 and 29 September, 1994 for Myalgia; on 6-10-1994 for abdomen pain, again on 25-10-1994 for Myalgia, on 10-1-1995 for abdomen pain, on 12-1-1995 for Myalgia and on 20-1-1995 for abdomen pain by Dr. Damodar Reddy and on 3rd and 5th August, 1994 he was diagnosed for acidity, on 7-1-1995 for constipation and on 9th and 13th January, 1995 for pain abdomen by Dr. M. Meher Prasad. It further shows that on 25-1-1995 at 8.00 p.m. the deceased was admitted in the Jail Hospital for abdomen pain and was given treatment up to 28-1-1995 and on 29-1-1995 at 12.50 p.m. he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for acute pain in the abdomen.
6. As stated earlier, the deceased died on 30-1-1995 at 12.30 a.m. at Gandhi Hospital. No external or internal injury was found on the body. Left and right lungs were congested and the pleural cavities were normal, that heart was massively enlarged and the left ventricular wall was thickened and the aortic valves are fibrosed and aortic opening was dilated, stomach was found empty. The doctor who conducted autopsy certified that the approximate time of death was on 30-1-1995 at 12.30 a.m. and on conclusion of the post-mortem at 3.45 p.m. on 31-1-1995, he opined the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was due to congestive cardiac failure associated with aortic valve disease.
7. The 4th Respondent though filed Xerox copy of the inquest report, I could not gather any material from the same inasmuch as it is quite illegible even to read.
8. These documents evidently shows that the deceased was suffering from acute abdomen pain and other ailments from 3-8-1994, but till 28-1-1995 he was not subjected to examination by any Specialist to know the root cause of the disease suffered by the deceased.
9. The doctor who treated the deceased from 22-8-1994 to 20-1-1995 also filed his counter-affidavit to the same effect. In paragraph No. 3, he further stated that the deceased came to the O.P. for minor complaints like indigestion, abdominal pain, constipation and body pain, on which he was examined and was given medicines once in fortnight or 20 days and not regular, that the deceased was quite hale and healthy after the treatment, that on 25-1-1995 the deceased came to the hospital for pain abdomen and he was admitted in the Jail Hospital for observation and treatment and after clinical examination his blood pressure was found as 130/80, pulse at 81 per minute, abdomen was soft, temperature was normal and lungs and heart were clear and for mild pain in the lower abdomen, treatment was given and it continued for four days and his condition was satisfactory. In the afternoon of 29-1-1995, the deceased complained abdomen pain, vomiting and giddiness for which he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment under a specialist care. It is further stated that there is no question of negligence in attending on any prisoner suffering from any type of disease and there is no question of any neglecting any prisoner in the Jail regarding his health condition muchless the husband of the petitioner herein. It is also stated that even the post-mortem report shows that the cause of death was due to congestive cardiac failure associated with aortic valve disease which was a natural death and the deceased was not known to be suffering from any heart disease earlier. Therefore, there is no question of negligence on his part and he has referred the deceased for specialist treatment and clinical investigations as soon as it was felt necessary.
10. The respondents have not filed any clinical reports for perusal of this Court, even though time was granted on more than one occasion from 23-1-2001 to 24-8-2001, to produce the original records. But reasons best known to them, the respondents did not chose to produce the original records. It is a settled principle of law that a party in possession of the records, fails to produce the same even after requisition, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. I will deal with this aspect at a later stage. Suffice it to say that in spite of repeated adjournments and requistions the respondents failed to produce the records.
11. Evidently, it is the version of the jail doctors who attended on the deceased, that the deceased suffered minor ailments like Myalgia, abdominal pain, acidity and constipation from 22-9-1994 to 30-1-1995 and appropriate treatment was given to the deceased. It is specifically mentioned that on 25-1-1995 at 8.00 p.m. he was admitted in the Jail Hospital for abdomen pain and was given treatment up to 28-1-1995 and on 29-1-1994 at 12.50 p.m. he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for acute pain in the abdomen. The doctors have never stated that the deceased was subjected to medical examination by any Expert, before he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, though he was very often getting abdominal pain and Myalgia. The post-mortem report filed by the respondents shows that the deceased was admitted in Gandhi Hospital at 12.50 p.m. on 29-1-1995 and died on 30-1-1995 at 12.30 a.m. i.e. within 12 hours. Thus one can visualize the gravity of ailment the deceased was suffering with before he was referred to Gandhi Hospital. The respondents, as stated earlier, have not filed even a scrap of paper evidencing as to what investigations were done and the line of treatment. It is very much pertinent to note here that though more than once the respondents were directed to produce the records, though they are the custodia legis, they failed to produce the same. Further the petitioners also should have taken some responsibility to get certified copies of the case sheet from the Hospital as well as from the Jail Authorities.
12. As per the Medico-Legal Jurisprudence, the heart is considered to have failed when it is unable to maintain an output sufficient for the needs of the body, or can do so only at the expense of an abnormally high venous pressure. Cardiac failure is liable to develop in patients with conditions which lead to the heart having too great a load over a long period, or because the function of the heart muscle is inadequate, or from a combination of both factors. Under such circumstances, a complicated derangement of cardiovascular renal and endocrine functions can develop which include abnormal retention of sodium and water in most cases. The increased body fluids tend to accumulate in the lungs when the left ventricle is under an abnormal load, or is itself abnormal, and then the onset of symptoms may be acute, with pulmonary oedema. Gravity is the main determinant of the site of collection of oedema when the right ventricle fails. However, because the disturbance of renal and endocrine function is common to both conditions, the terms left and right heart failure tend to be oversimplications. Pathophysiology shows that the heart may fail when overwhelmed by an excessive preload i.e. the volume which it has to handle, or by increased after-load i.e. the work done during ejection. Both the ventricles may be affected when the cardiac output is increased as in hyperthyroidism, beriberi and severe chronic anaemia. Only one ventricle may be affected i.e. the left in persistent ducts arteriosus or the right in atrial septal defect and there may be increased afterload as a result of hypertension or aortic value obstruction. The function of the heart muscle itself may be impaired as in myocarditis or hypoxia or the myocardium may be deficient after infraction. The filling of the ventricle may be restricted by a pericardial effusion or constrictive pericarditis. Often these circumstances may be combined as in the patient with mitral stenosis who has impaired filling of the left ventricle and increased after load of the right ventricle due to pulmonary arterial hypertension. The effect of dilatation is liable to self defeating, for the more a ventricle is stretched the greater is the amount of work required of it to eject a given quantity of blood.
13. It is an undisputed phenomenon that enlargement of heart cannot take place within a day or two, it can happen at least 2 to 3 months and on diagnosis or investigations, it should be known. Similarly, dilation of aortic opening and thickening of wall do not take place in a day or two. Medical theory also says that aortic valve disease cannot develop immediately. On diagnosis and investigation, it can be known. This abundantly makes it clear that no care or caution was taken by the respondents to get the deceased examined by a Surgeon or a Specialist, even though he was complaining of ailments very often. Though it is the consistent stand of the Jail Medical Officers and the Jail Authorities that the deceased was suffering with minor ailments and he was given appropriate timely treatment. Further it is the stand of the Medical Officers of the Jail that the deceased was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 29-1-1995 at 12.30 p.m. for acute pain in abdomen. I fail to understand how the deceased died due to massive enlargement of heart within 12 hours. The above medical theory belies their version. This clearly goes to show that no proper care and caution was bestowed towards the deceased for a period of six months that ultimately resulted the deceased met his maker untimely due to negligence act of the respondents. Therefore, in view of the medical theory and the line of treatment given by the doctors who attended on the deceased. I have my own doubts as to the genuineness of the post-mortem report issued by the Gandhi Hospital, as to which of them is true. If the cause of death of the deceased i.e. congestive cardiac failure associated with aortic valve, as mentioned in the post-mortem report is taken into account, then it is not known as to why the deceased did not complained of heart ailment one or two months prior to his death. It is also not known whether the deceased has made such complaint, but the Jail Authorities have suppressed the same. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the deceased died a negligent death at the hands of the respondents for the reason that they failed to evince any care to get the deceased examined under any Specialist, even though as per their version the deceased was frequently attacked by abdominal pain and Myalgia.
14. Therefore, once I came to the above said conclusion that due to the negligence and tortuous act of the Jail Authorities and the Medical Officers who are incharge of the Jail to provide medical aid to the deceased, then the second limb of the matter is as to what is quantum of compensation the petitioners are entitled to from the respondents.
15. The Supreme Court, through a stream of cases, has awarded compensation to the persons who suffered personal injuries at the hands of the officers of the Government including Police Officers and personnel for their tortuous act. It further held that though most of the cases were decided under public law domain, it would not make any difference as in the instant case, two vital factors namely negligence of the Jail Authorities as well as the Medical Officers attached to the Jail. The Government does not enjoy immunity from the vicarious liability of the tortuous act of its Officers and servants. Therefore, the maxim that the king can do no wrong or that the Crown is not answerable in tort has no place in Indian jurisprudence where the power vests, not in the Crown, but in the people who elect their representatives to run the Government, which as to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and would be answerable to the people for any violation thereof. The Court further observed that the fundamental rights which also include basic human rights, continue to be available to a prisoner and those rights cannot be defeated by pleading the old and archaic defence of immunity in respect of sovereign acts which has been rejected several times by the Supreme Court. According to the definition under the Prisoners Act, there is a convict, there is an under-trial and there is civil prisoner who may be a detenu under preventive detention law. None of the three categories of prisoners lose their fundamental rights on being placed inside a jail. The restriction placed on their right to movement is the result of their conviction or involvement in crime and, therefore, a prisoner is deprived of his personal liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law which must be reasonable, fair and just. It is also further held that the right to life is one of the basic human rights. It is guaranteed to every person by Article 21 of the Constitution and not even the State has the authority to violate that right. A prisoner, be he a convict or under-trial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being. Even when lodged in jail, he continue to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed to him under the Constitution. On being convicted of crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law, prisoners still retain the residue of constitutional rights. So far as the fundamental rights and human rights or human dignity are concerned, the law has marched ahead like a Pegasus but the Government attitude continues to be conservative and it tries to defend its action or the tortuous actions of its Officers by raising the plea of immunity for sovereign acts or acts of the State, which must fail.
16. The above observations were made by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, 2000 (5) SCC 712 : 2000 AIR(SC) 2083) wherein Challa Chinnappa Reddy and his son Challa Ramkrishna Reddy were involved in criminal case No. 18 of 1997 Owk Police Station in Baganapalle Taluk of Kurnool District. They were arrested on 25-4-1977 and on being remanded to judicial custody on 26-4-1977, they were lodged in Cell No. 7 of Sub-Jail, Koilkuntla. Both of them informed the Inspector of Police that there was a conspiracy to kill them and their lives were in danger and sent representations to that effect to the Collector and Home Minister and on 5-5-1977 they told the Circle Inspector that they had positive information that an attack on their lives would be made on that very night, the Circle Inspector did not treat the matter seriously and said that no incident would happen inside the jail and they need not worry. In spite of the representations made by them, adequate protection was not provided to them and extra guards were not put on duty, that though 9 members of the police party must stay in the sub-jail premises during the night, only two were there on that night. Challa Reddy, therefore, asked his followers to sleep that night i.e., between 5/6-5-1977 near the jail itself, and at about 3.30 a.m., some persons entered the premises of the sub-jail and hurled bombs into Cell No. 7 as a result of which Challa Chinnappa Reddy sustained grievous injuries and died subsequently in Government Hospital, Kurnool and his son Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, who was also lodged in Cell No. 7, however, escaped with some injuries. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy along with his brothers and mother filed a suit against the State of Andhra Pradesh claiming a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as damages on account of the negligence of the defendant which had resulted in the death of Challa Chinnappa Reddy. The suit was contested by the State of Andhra Pradesh on two principal grounds namely that the suit was barred by limitation and that no damages could be awarded in respect of sovereign functions as the establishment and maintenance of jail was part of the sovereign functions of the State and therefore, even if there was any negligence on the part of the Officers of the State, the State would not be liable in damages as it was immune from any legal action in respect of its sovereign acts. Both these contentions were accepted by the trial Court and the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the suit was decreed by the High Court for a sum of Rupees 1,44,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation. Against that judgment, appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court made the above observations.
17. The Supreme Court in a decision Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, 2000 (2) SCC 465 : 2000 AIR(SC) 988) has held that if the employees charged with the discharge of public duties commits an act of tort, the State Government of which are the employees, can subject to other legal requirement being satisfied, be held vicariously liable in damages to the person wronged by those employees and compensation be awarded under public law domain in the cases relating to medical negligence and rejected the contention that the victim should have approached the Civil Court for damages and the matter should not have been considered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of fundamental rights or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available under the public law notwithstanding that the suit could be filed for damages under private law.
18. As stated earlier, there is negligence on the part of the respondents in not providing proper medical care to the deceased who was suffering with ailment. If the version of the jail authorities is taken as correct, the post-mortem report stands belied and if the post-mortem report is trusted, then the version of the jail authorities and the jail doctors cannot be believed. Apparently, there seems to be something hidden behind the veil and the Court, with a view to unveil the veil, directed the respondents to produce the records, but for their own reasons they did not chose to produce the same even though ample opportunity was given. The medical theory, as stated earlier, suggest that the heart cannot be massively enlarged in a day or two the aortic valve disease cannot develop immediately and similarly the dilation of aortic opening is not a phenomenon of a couple of days, but it takes two to three months. Thus, conclusively it can be said that the negligence of the jail authorities and the jail doctors, has lead the deceased to untimely death, thereby the widow - first petitioner has lost her life companion and the other two infant petitioners have become orphans and lost fatherly affection. Thus the Government is vicariously liable for the wrong actions of its servants, as held by the Supreme Court in Chandrima Das's case 2000 AIR(SC) 988).
19. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased was working as an agricultural labour and was said to be earning Rs. 1500/- per month. Therefore, even if 1/3rd is deducted for his personal expenses, he was contributing Rs. 1000/- for the maintenance of the petitioners. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of his death, even as per the post-mortem report. Taking the life span on an approximation as 60 years, the deceased was to survive for 30 years more. Therefore, applying the principle of multiplier, as in the case of Motor Vehicle accident cases, a multiplier of 16 can be applied. Thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/-. Under incidental expenses, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- can be awarded. Therefore, as claimed by the petitioners, they are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs.
20. Therefore, a writ of mandamus shall lie to the respondents directing them to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs in favour of the petitioners. Out of the total sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of minor daughters-Petitioners 2 and 3 in any Nationalised Bank and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to their mother - first petitioner every quarter for their upkeep. Out of the balance compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the first petitioner and the remaining balance of Rs. 50,000/- shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank, near the place of abode of the petitioner and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to her every quarter.
21. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment