CWP No.17944 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17944 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.10.2010 **** Jarnail Singh & Anr. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. SS Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct respondent No.1A “to take appropriate legal action against respondents No.2 & 3 for the act of recklessness on the part of respondents No.2 & 3” which allegedly resulted into the death of Tejinder Kaur daughter of the petitioners. (2). The documents on record, especially the opinion expressed by the Medical Board, does not substantiate the allegations made by the petitioners. (3). Be that as it may, no conclusive opinion on the basis of scant material regarding criminal CWP No.17944 of 2010.doc - 2 – negligence of respondent No.2&3 can be formed by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (4). The petitioner’s contention that this Court should direct constitution of a fresh Medical Board by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh is also misconceived for the reason that unless this Court forms an opinion to reject the medical opinion on record, there arise no occasion for it to direct constitution of fresh Medical Board. It is by now well-settled that if it is a case of ‘ordinary medical negligence’ the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy to approach under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, if it is a case of ‘criminal negligence’, as alleged by the petitioner suffice it to observe that still the petitioners have got an effective remedy to file a criminal complaint and the Court of competent jurisdiction shall be at liberty to seek afresh opinion of any other Medical Board/expert, if so required. (5). With liberty afore-stated, the writ petition is dismissed. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 04.10.2010 CWP No.17944 of 2010.doc - 3 – vishal shonkar