IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8550 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011 Ashok Gupta ...Petitioner versus Asian Hospital, Faridabad ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate-Amicus Curiae. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Application for placing on record the Enquiry Report (R-1) is allowed and the same is taken on record. 2. The writ petition has been brought on own motion on a complaint sent by one Ashok Gupta that his son, who had been grievously hurt in an accident, was negligently handled by the respondent-Hospital by conducting a surgery on him by a Plastic Surgeon without a Neuro Surgeon, leading him to conduct the surgery for the injury suffered in the brain. This Court had appointed a Committee of two doctors to give a report on whether there was any fault on the part of the Hospital in giving the treatment. Civil Writ Petition No.8550 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - 3. Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Amicus Curiae, appointed by this Court, points out that the case summary, which had been given by the Hospital, made a specific reference to the surgery as having been performed by Dr. Amitabh, Plastic Surgeon. According to him, the Hospital must have now fabricated document to make it appear as though that a Neuro Surgeon was also involved in the surgery. The fact is that the patient has died and the issue of negligence of the Hospital could be seen only in the light of materials brought before this Court. The report of the Committee of doctors appointed through this Court, makes reference to the alleged operation performed on the patient by a Plastic Surgeon and Neuro Surgeon. This report unfortunately does not reconcile the serious discrepancy that is found in the case summary produced on behalf of the petitioner. In the face of a report of the Committee, it may not be a case of a criminal negligence as originally contemplated when this Court issued a notice on 13.05.2011. 4. But, if the death of the patient had resulted by any negligent act of the Hospital in not giving the standard medical care, the petitioner will be entitled to complain of deficiency of service and secure appropriate compensation. In a res ipsa loquitur situation, it would have become possible for this Court to have directed compensation to be paid, but where discrepant evidence is brought before Court, it will be risky to launch upon any inference one way or the other. The petitioner will have appropriate remedy either in a civil suit or through a complaint before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant will be at liberty to secure the production of the necessary Civil Writ Petition No.8550 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - hospital records from the respondent and I direct that all the hospital records shall be retained by them and no part of the same will be destroyed or altered by the respondent-Hospital. 5. The writ petition is disposed of but with liberty to the petitioner in the manner referred to above for pursuing his remedy in an appropriate forum. I value the assistance of the Amicus Curiae and direct the amount of Rs.10,000/- as remuneration to be paid to him from out of the Amicus Curiae Fund. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 29.08.2011 sanjeev