IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2583 of 1999 Between: 1 Y Channa Reddy S/o Y Thippanna R/o Janakampalle, Bukkapatnam Mandal, Anantapur District 2 Master Y Yashwant Kumar Reddy S/o Y Channa Reddy R/o Janakampalle, Bukkapatnam Mandal, Anantapur District 3 Kum. Y Harika D/o Y Channa Reddy R/o Janakampalle, Bukkapatnam Mandal, Anantapur District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Dr. S. Nagabhushana Chary S/o not known Primary Health Centre, Bukkapatnam, Ananthapur District 3 Dr. Y Prabhakar S/o Not Known, Primary Health Centre, Kothacheruvu, Anantapur District 4 K Venkata Ramana S/o Not Known Talamarla, Primary Health Centre, Kothacheruvu, Anantapur District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction one preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and third respondents in not properly conducting operation (Family Planning ) to the victim and the action of the third respondent in not rendering medical services timely, the next day of the operation i.e., on 5/9/98 causing the death of the victim as illegal and unconstitutional, violation of Article 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay a total compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to them and also provide necessary funds to the Educational needs of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2583 of 1999 ORDER: Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the 1st petitioner. It is stated that the wife of the 1st petitioner after giving birth to second female child on 15.08.1988 they have decided to underwent family planning operation, and accordingly, approached the 3rd respondent/Primary Health Centre, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapur District on 04.09.1998 and the 2nd respondent-Dr.S.Nagabhushanachary, having satisﬁed with all formalities fulﬁlled by the petitioner and his wife in connection with the operation, got the wife of the petitioner admitted in the Primary Health Centre, Kothacheruvu and conducted operation on 04.09.1998. It is stated that on 05.09.1998 at about 11.40 a.m. on the advise of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent administered intramascular B12 injunction to the wife of the petitioner. It is stated that within minutes the perspiration started shedding with cold and shivering and as there was no immediate attention on the victim by the Doctor or the staﬀ, and due to lapses on the part of the respondents for not giving antidote, controlling the reaction, the wife of the petitioner died within an hour. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that there is gross negligence on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 in administering the IBM-12 injunction to the victim without taking any minimum precautions whether the injunction is suitable or whether the victim is eﬀected with any reaction, the injunction has been administered negligently, and therefore, it is stated that all the respondents including the State are vicariously liable for the damages to the petitioner on account of the death of the wife of the 1st petitioner and mother of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, amounting to Rs.6 lakh. It is stated that in fact, a criminal case was also registered in Cr.No.78/98 for the oﬀence under Sec.304-A IPC by Kothacheruvu P.S. of Ananthapur district on 05.09.1998 against the 4th respondent. It is stated that the post mortem was also conducted and the cause of death of the victim is due to the negligence on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 only. The 2nd respondent ﬁled a counter stating that he has performed the tubectomy operation on the wife of the 1st petitioner on 04.09.1998 and he received information on 05.09.1998 from the Primary Health Centre, Kothacheruvu to attend an emergency case with regard to wife of the 1st petitioner, and immediately he rushed to the Primary Health Centre, Kothacheruvu, and by that time, the wife of the 1st petitioner passed away. The 3rd respondent ﬁled a counter stating that after the operation, he took all precautionary measures and before administering the injunction, he tested blood pressure of the victim and by taking all precautionary measures, advised the 4th respondent to administer the IBM 12 injunction to the wife of the 1st petitioner and other similarly situated patients. There is no negligence on his part, and the post mortem report reveals that the patient died of pulmonary embolism and hence he is not all responsible for the death of wife of the 1st petitioner. The 4th respondent ﬁled a counter stating that on 05.09.1998 at 11.40 a.m. he administered intramascular B12 injunction to the wife of the 1st petitioner and also other persons and the said intramascular B12 injunction is normally given as a post operative treatment to all patients who undergo tubectomy and the said injunction is to be given for a period of ﬁve days. Thus, it is stated that at the advice of the 3rd respondent only he has administered the said injunction and as suﬃcient postoperative care was taken to safeguard the life of the wife of the 1st petitioner, it cannot be said that he is responsible for the death of wife of the 1st petitioner. There was no speciﬁc answer or reply in the counters of any of the respondents as regards to the negligence on their part in taking suﬃcient care and precautionary measures before administering the intramascular B12 injunction. But, however, the petitioner is not able to substantiate the duties and responsibilities of the respondents before administering any injunction, and therefore, I am of the opinion that it requires an expert opinion and evidence to be adduced before the appropriate Court or the Forum. Having regards to the facts of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner either to ﬁle a civil suit or approach the appropriate Consumer Forum for deﬁciency of service, claiming suitable damages against the State as well as respondents 2 to 4. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 28.08.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies