Allowed

Dr.Renuka R.P. v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission

Kerala HC2 Jun 2017WP(C)/18372/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission violated principles of natural justice by imposing a fine on three Government doctors for alleged medical negligence based solely on newspaper reports, without issuing notice or conducting a proper inquiry, and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission dated 28.12.2016 in HRMP No.8363 of 2016 is set aside.

Dr.Renuka R.P. Vs Kerala State Human Rights… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939 WP(C).No. 18372 of 2017 (V) ----------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER(S):

¶5

1. DR.RENUKA R.P., SREEMANGALAM, NEAR PRARTHANA GIRI, CHITTAZHA, VATTAPPARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶6

2. DR.RAJEEV KUMAR, HOUSE NO.15, PSC NAGAR, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR.

¶7

3. DR.SMITHA K. VIKRAMAN, SMITHA BHAVAN, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS.DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.V.A.HARITHA SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR

¶8

RESPONDENT(S) :-

¶9

1. KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶10

2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

WP(C).No. 18372 of 2017

¶13

4. DISTRICT MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, NEDUMNGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541.

¶15

6. SMT.LAILA BEEVI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, IRUTHALAMOOLA THOLIKODE P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541.

¶16

R2 - R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

jvt

¶19

WP(C).No. 18372 of 2017 (V)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 27.09.2016 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IN HRMP 8363/16 TVM DATED 28.12.2016 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT AND STATEMENTS OBTAINED THROUGH RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶28

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ &

¶29

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

¶30

W.P(C). No. 18372 of 2017 --------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2017

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ

¶33

The three writ petitioners are Government Doctors. They are aggrieved by the order of the Acting Chair Person of Kerala State Human Rights Commission being order dated 28.12.2016 passed in H.R.M.P. No.8363 of 2016 whereby the Commission not only initiated suo-motu proceedings upon newspaper reports, but admittedly, without even notice being issued to the petitioners found the petitioners guilty of medical negligence and imposed exemplary fine of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the Government to the patient and recovered from the petitioners.

¶34

Assuming the facts as noticed by the Commission to be correct, we respectfully disagree that there was any medical negligence. The facts are that the patient was to undergo complete Hysterectomy operation. After the operation, at the time of closure of the surgical wound, it was noticed that a part of the surgical towel clip is missing. A frantic search was made

¶35

W.P.(C).18372/17 2

¶36

but it could not be located either outside or inside the body. An endorsement was made in the surgical report and to facilitate an X-ray, the incision was closed and the patient was wheeled out, after information to the family members. X-ray fortunately revealed that the broken piece of towel clip was in the abdominal cavity. The patient was moved to the Medical College Hospital where the said clip was removed. Thus seen there was no negligence. All due care was taken. The patient's ward were taken into confidence. Records were duly maintained. It seems that the press got this information and sensationalized as usual the whole thing. The Commission through the Acting Chair Person took suo-motu cognizance of the event and without even notice to the petitioners passed the final order solely based on the newspaper reports.

¶37

We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Dr. S, Gopakumaran Nair and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶38

Apart from the fact that it is not a case of medical negligence, we are constrained to hold that the order cannot be sustained at all. It is in grossest violation of principles of natural justice. There has never been a complaint by the

¶39

W.P.(C).18372/17 3

¶40

person concerned. The Commission even otherwise was not competent to impose fine much less without initiating a proper proceedings and without noticing the petitioners or even the State in the matter. It is the elementary principle of law that no one can be condemned without affording them a fair hearing. We hope the Commission realizes this position as well, for they are not new and is the law of the land. We are thus constrained to set aside the order of the Commission and allow this writ petition.

¶41

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶42

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Judge

¶43

sou.3/6.

Dr.Renuka R.P. v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Renuka R.P. v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.S.Sunil Kumar Vs Indian Bank

M.K. Krishnan Vs Kerala Forest Development Corporation

Jose Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Sudhy Surendran Vs the Authorised Officer

The Cochin Port Trust Vs R.Krishnamoorthy

George P.J Vs the Authorized Officer