When a patient is admitted in a government
hospital for treatment and he/she suffers any injury or
death which is not anticipated to occur in the normal
course of events, even in the absence of medical
negligence, the government is obliged to disburse exgratia
to the affected party. In the case on hand,
liability has to be fastened on the government. Since
the institution happens to be the Government institution,
the Government of Tamil Nadu will have to necessarily
take consequence. My attention is drawn to G.O(Ms)No.395
dated 04.09.2018 whereby a corpus fund has been created
by the Tamil Nadu Government. It appears that every
Government doctor contributes certain sum of money
towards this corpus fund and whenever compensation is
directed to be paid by the courts, amount will be drawn
from this fund and paid. Considering the overall
circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner
deserves to be paid a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as
compensation. The said amount shall be paid by the
department/Government from the said fund. Such payment
will be made to the petitioner within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.02.2021
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
WP(MD)No.2721 of 2017
Tamil Selvi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Dated:01.02.2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Additional Government Pleader for the official
respondents and the learned counsel for the private
respondents.
2.The petitioner's daughter Sangeetha aged about
eight years was suffering from tonsils. She was admitted
in Government Hospital, Aruppukottai on 07.04.2016 for
treatment. The child was examined and it was suggested
that she must undergo surgery. She was an inpatient on
13.04.2016 for this purpose. For preparing the child for
surgery, anesthesia was administered by the 9th respondent
Anesthetist. Unfortunately, the child developed some
complications and she was shifted to Rajaji Government
Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. The child went
into coma and eventually passed away on 05.07.2016.
Alleging that the death of the child was purely due to
medical negligence on the part of the private
respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition
demanding payment of compensation.
3.The prayer made in the writ petition is opposed
both by the official respondents as well as the private
respondents. They have also filed their counter
affidavits.
4.I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the materials on record. There is no dispute
that the petitioner's child was admitted only for the
purpose of tonsil surgery and nothing else. It is also
not in dispute that even before the surgery could be
performed on the child, the child developed complications
following the administration of anesthesia. The learned
counsel for the petitioner would strongly allege that but
for the negligence on the part of the anesthetist and
other doctors, the child would not have died.
5.The issue of medical negligence requires a
factual determination. It is seen that following the
complaint lodged by the petitioner, an enquiry was in
fact conducted. The report was submitted by four member
enquiry committee on 17.06.2016. It clearly states that
there was no medical negligence on the part of the
doctors. Then, the question arises as to how the death
had occurred. It appears that the child was administered
a drug known as Propofol.
6.The learned counsel for the private respondents
has made available the literature on the subject. It is
seen therefrom that the propofol is not an intrinsically
dangerous drug and it is very much administered to
children above 3 years of age. It states however that
there may be implications for children with mitochondrial
diseases. There is nothing on record to indicate that
the deceased child had the said decease and that it was
omitted to be noticed by the doctors in question.
7.There are always instances when a drug does not
accord with the body of the patient and that leads to
unfortunate complications. The case on hand appears to
be one such. Therefore, I do not find any ground to hold
that the respondent anesthetists have committed any act
of medical negligence.
8.Even though I may reject the allegation of the
petitioner as regards medical negligence, still, there is
no answer to the question regarding compensation. The
petitioner belongs to Hindu Pallar community. It is a
notified scheduled caste community. Her child was
admitted in a Government Hospital for tonsil surgery.
The learned counsel for the respondents would state that
such surgeries are regularly performed in Government
Hospital, Aruppukottai. The petitioner's child should
have been discharged after successfully conducting
surgery. But what the petitioner got was only the dead
body of her child. Neither the petitioner nor her child
was at fault. When a patient is admitted in a government
hospital for treatment and he/she suffers any injury or
death which is not anticipated to occur in the normal
course of events, even in the absence of medical
negligence, the government is obliged to disburse exgratia
to the affected party. In the case on hand,
liability has to be fastened on the government. Since
the institution happens to be the Government institution,
the Government of Tamil Nadu will have to necessarily
take consequence. My attention is drawn to G.O(Ms)No.395
dated 04.09.2018 whereby a corpus fund has been created
by the Tamil Nadu Government. It appears that every
Government doctor contributes certain sum of money
towards this corpus fund and whenever compensation is
directed to be paid by the courts, amount will be drawn
from this fund and paid. Considering the overall
circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner
deserves to be paid a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as
compensation. The said amount shall be paid by the
department/Government from the said fund. Such payment
will be made to the petitioner within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Since the enquiry conducted by the department itself had
exonerated the private respondents from any charge of
negligence, the question of recovering the said amount
from their salary will not arise.
9.The writ petition is allowed on these terms. No
costs.
01.02.2021
No comments:
Post a Comment