The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal of the state of Uttar Pradesh challenging the Allahabad High Court‘s order directing the state to pay a compensation of Rs 25,00,000 on a finding of gross medical negligence on the part of doctors of S.R.N. Medical College which had resulted in death of an only son of an practising Advocate of the High Court who was also an Advocate.
Taking cognizance of a letter dated 04.11.2016 addressed by one B.P. Mishra (Respondent) to one of the Judges of the High Court, the Public Interest Litigation was registered by the High Court. The letter highlighted certain facts and asserted that the son of the respondent who was about 25 years of age and was a practising Advocate in the Allahabad High Court, died on 30.10.2016 as a result of negligence on part of the treating doctors and the hospital where he was admitted for medical attention.
In said Public Interest Litigation, the High Court issued certain interim directions as a result of which affidavits came to be filed by the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow, placing on record certain material. None of the treating doctors was made a party to the proceedings.
Also Read: Kerala government urges Supreme Court for independent safety review of Mullaperiyar Dam
The High Court issued following directions to the State Government and its functionaries to take following measures:-
“23. In view of above facts, we are issuing the following directions to the State Government and its functionaries to take following measures:-
(i) All the District Magistrates of the State shall be responsible for compliance of these directions and they shall ensure that preventive measures mentioned in the “The Uttar Pradesh Prevention and Control of Malaria, Dengue, Kala-azar and any Vector Borne Disease Regulations, 2016” and work plan prepared by the State Government for control / prevention and rescue of dengue and other vector borne diseases i.e. ‘Dengue and Chikangunia Prevention Plans -2016-17’ be complied with strictly.
(ii) In the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is mentioned that in several districts of State, 37 SSH’s Lab (Sentinal Surveillance Hospital) which have been established for test and investigation of dengue and chikangunia patients, should function efficiently under the supervision of Chief Medical Officer and overall supervision of District Magistrate.
(iii) For the supply of blood and platelets of dengue patients, 39 blood separation units, which have been established in the State of UP, should also function as per the direction, strictly in terms of directions issued by the State Government and the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary.
(iv) In Allahabad, SSH’s Lab (Sentinal Surveillance Hospital), which has been established in Motilal Nehru Medical College and 03 blood separation units, should be made functional efficiently. Any negligence in its function shall be viewed seriously and necessary action shall be taken for negligence. The Chief Medical Officer, who has been appointed by the State Government as Nodal Officer, is charged to ensure the compliance of the directions issued by this Court.”
The aforestated directions issued by the High Court were undoubtedly in the realm of public law and, as such, could certainly be issued while considering a public interest litigation pursuant to the communication received from the respondent. The High Court, however, also made following observations and issued consequential directions.
“20. In the case of Arun Kumar Manglik (supra), Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,00000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) but in that case there is finding recorded by the Supreme Court that there was no negligence on the part of the doctors. In that case the doctors have made correct diagnosis but the medical negligence was found the part of hospital.
But in the present case the doctors of S.R.N. Medical College made wrong diagnosis and they administered ‘broad spectrum antibiotic’ to the patient which is not prescribed in dengue fever as discussed above in the direction of State Government, which is on record, in which it is clearly mentioned that antibiotic should not be given to dengue patient.
In view of gross medical negligence on the part of the doctors of S.R.N. Medical College and in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that a practising Advocate of this Court has lost his only young son, who was also an advocate, we assess the compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs) as mentioned above, which shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today. The above payment shall be made through the District Magistrate. Sri K. K. Rai, Advocate, shall also be paid fee of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) by the State in the same manner.”
Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State.
Also Read: CJI NV Ramana expresses displeasure over action taken report in sealed cover
A bench of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice P. S. Narasimha, while considering the appeal, noted that none of the treating doctors was a party to the proceedings. During the course of its judgement, the High Court arrived at certain conclusions which were in the nature of findings on the issue of negligence on part of the concerned hospital and the treating doctors. Such findings and conclusions are definitely prejudicial to the interest of the treating doctors and the hospital.
“Leaving aside the question whether in a public interest litigation, the matter could be seen whether any negligence had occurred in an individual case, the basic feature of the matter as it emerges is quite clear that none of the persons who could get adversely affected by a decision was made a party to the proceedings”, observed the Bench.
The Court therefore had no hesitation in setting-aside the findings and the conclusions in the judgment under appeal about negligence on part of the hospital and the treating doctors and the operative directions issued in paragraph 20 as quoted hereinabove. The Bench therefore, allowed the appeal and set-aside such conclusions and directions. It is however made clear that the directions issued in paragraph 23 are left untouched and shall be operative.
If the respondent has a grievance that his son died as a result of professional negligence on part of the concerned hospital and treating doctors, he has every remedy in law either on the criminal side, or before a consumer forum or before any other competent authority. Public Interest Litigation in a manner it was initiated and dealt with by the High Court was certainly not a proper remedy, the Bench held.
“Therefore, leaving all questions open, we give liberty to the respondent to initiate such proceedings as are open to him in law. As and when, such proceedings are initiated, the time taken in prosecuting the instant public interest litigation shall be reckoned for the purposes of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and in such eventuality, the proceedings so initiated shall be taken to logical conclusion purely on their own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court. The respondent shall however be entitled to rely on the material which was placed before the High Court”
-the order reads.