Dismissed

K.Abdul Raheem v. the Dean

Madras HC27 Sept 2022WP/12302/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeking compensation for alleged medical negligence was dismissed. The Court noted the absence of the actual victim and lack of evidence to substantiate negligence claims made in a belated affidavit. The Court directed the filing of aConsumer Court suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an appropriate suit or proceeding before the Consumer Redressal Forum within six months to claim compensation for medical negligence.

K.Abdul Raheem Vs the Dean — Medical Negligence | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. No.12302 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No.12302 of 2010

¶7

K.Abdul Raheem ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Dean, Government Vellore Medical College Hospital, Vellore.

¶9

2.The Medical Superintendent, Government Vellore Medical College Hospital, Vellore – 11.

¶10

3.The Enquiry Officer, Government Vellore Medical College Hospital, Vellore – 11.

¶11

4.The Administrative Officer, Government Vellore Medical College Hospital, Vellore.

¶12

5.Dr.Subidhalakshmi ... Respondents

¶13

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P. No.12302 of 2010

¶17

Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation based on the representation made by petitioner on 16.04.2010.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, Government Advocate for R1 to R4

¶19

R5-No appearance

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

¶22

direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation, based on his representation dated 16.04.2010.

¶23

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he had admitted his wife for second delivery with the first respondent hospital on 07.05.2008 at about 5.10 p.m. Since doctors have advised to perform operation for removal of a tumor, which was found in her stomach, on 02.07.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., a surgery was performed in the hospital. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that a sponge has not been removed, while performing the cardiac surgery. Therefore, the petitioner had spent huge amount for

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P. No.12302 of 2010

¶27

giving her treatment. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.04.2010 to the respondents requesting them to give a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- due to the sufferings sustained by the entire family. As there was no response, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the above prayer.

¶28

3.Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4

¶29

stating that the surgery was conducted perfectly and no untoward incidents have taken place during the surgery.

¶30

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

¶31

the materials available on record.

¶32

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a clear

¶33

case of negligence on the part of the respondents in performing the surgery on the wife of the petitioner. But they have not come forward to pay the compensation to the petitioner till date.

¶34

3/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P. No.12302 of 2010

¶37

6.It could be seen that the petitioner/husband has filed this writ petition. As the aggrieved party is the wife of the petitioner, she is not before this Court. Moreover, she has not even come forward to give any representation or complaint stating that surgery has not been done properly. When it is the contention of the petitioner that surgery was not done properly, he has to produce some relevant documents to show that there was a negligence on the part of the respondents, but there is no iota of evidence or proof to substantiate that untoward incidents have taken place. Mere affidavit alone not sufficient to decide the whole issue. As the petitioner has come forward to give a complaint after 1 year and 2 months from the date of discharge from the hospital, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶38

7.Liberty is granted to the petitioner or his wife to file an

¶39

appropriate suit or proceeding before Consumer Redressal Forum claiming compensation on the ground of medical negligence and

¶40

4/6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P. No.12302 of 2010

¶43

establish the facts before the concerned Court. Such suit or complaint shall be filed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The time period spent in this writ petition shall be excluded by Court or Forum, taking note of the nature of relief sought. No costs.

¶44

27.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order vga To

¶45

1.The Dean, Government Vellore Medical College Hospital, Vellore.

¶46

2.The Medical Superintendent, Government Vellore Medical College Hospital, Vellore – 11.

¶47

3.The Enquiry Officer, Government Vellore Medical College Hospital, Vellore – 11.

¶48

4.The Administrative Officer, Government Vellore Medical College Hospital, Vellore.

¶49

5/6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P. No.12302 of 2010

¶52

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.

¶53

vga

¶54

W.P. No.12302 of 2010

¶55

27.09.2022

¶56

6/6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Abdul Raheem v. the Dean

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Abdul Raheem v. the Dean

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthu Memorial Educational Vs National Council for Teacher

V.Maheswari Vs District Collector (Revenue)

M/S.B.Muthulakshmi & Co., Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

Deepa Jennifer Vs The Registrar

M/S. T.N.V. Agencies Rep. by Vs the Dist. Collector

Kamal Agencies Vs the District Revenue Officer