W.P.(C) 16906/2006 Page 1 of 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 3rd August, 2011 + W.P.(C) 16906/2006 DR.SURESH CH.MALIK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Suresh Tripathy, Adv. versus THE VICE CHANCELLOR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma for Mr. S.C. Dhanda, Adv. for R-1/JNU Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-2. Mr. Sumit Babbar & Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv for AIIMS. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The son of the petitioner was pursuing Ph.D Programme in the respondent no.1 JNU University and was resident of a hostel in the W.P.(C) 16906/2006 Page 2 of 6 University. On 2nd August, 2006 at about 1200 hours he was taken to the respondent no.3 All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on complaint of fever and was discharged the following day at 0700 hours in the morning; he continued to take medicines prescribed to him and on 4th August, 2006 at 0830 hours in the morning was found lying unconscious in his room and died shortly thereafter. The petitioner claims that he was informed by a friend of his son at about 1100 hours. This writ petition has been filed seeking an independent inquiry into the death of his son and for a direction to the authorities to formulate a scheme for providing medical attention and insurance cover to the students in the University. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. 3. On 23rd April, 2009, the respondent no.1 University was directed to file a copy of Rules or Guidelines as to the power or duties of the Wardens of the hostels and to disclose the number of students under supervision of each such Warden. On 12th July, 2010 the Medical Superintendent of the respondent no.3 AIIMS was directed to conduct an enquiry into the treatment meted out to the son of the petitioner. W.P.(C) 16906/2006 Page 3 of 6 4. In response to the aforesaid direction, the respondent no.3 AIIMS constituted a Committee comprising of Professor In-charge Emergency Services, Dy. Nursing Superintendent and Member Secretary of the Deptt. of Hospital Administration and which Committee has submitted a report dated 24th July, 2010. As per the said report, the son of the petitioner at the time of medical examination on 3rd August, 2006 at 1315 hours had complained of fever for two days with headache and vomiting; the medical examination did not reveal any significant abnormality and he was given appropriate treatment; he was discharged next day as aforesaid with direction to attend the Medicine OPD. The report further states that as per the Postmortem Report, the cause of death was identified as rupture of aneurysm at Circle of Willis and states that medicines prescribed on 2nd / 3rd August, 2006 were given to control fever and for treating malaria on presumptive grounds and none of the medicines prescribed were known to cause rupture of aneurysm. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no explanation in the aforesaid report as to why the blood pressure of the W.P.(C) 16906/2006 Page 4 of 6 petitioner’s son was not measured. It is contended that rupture of aneurysm is associated with high blood pressure and had the blood pressure been checked, rupture of aneurysm which ultimately caused death may have been detected and treated. 6. The Supreme Court in Martin F. D’ Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq JT 2009 (2) SC 486 has prescribed the procedure of constitution of a Medical Board in cases averring medical negligence. Now that the petitioner desires to challenge the finding of the Medical Board so constituted, the same will entail examination and cross examination of witnesses and which cannot be done in these proceedings. Though the petitioner in the writ petition has not claimed compensation but the counsel for the petitioner orally states that the petitioner be granted liberty to institute a suit claiming compensation and the limitation therefor be saved. 7. The counsel for the respondents have been heard on the aforesaid aspect. 8. Considering that the petitioner had first approached the Apex Court immediately after the demise of his son and after taking liberty therefrom W.P.(C) 16906/2006 Page 5 of 6 filed the present petition within one year of the demise of his son and notice whereof was issued and which has remained pending, it is deemed expedient to extend the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 to the petitioner and it is directed that if the Suit is filed on or before 30th September, 2011, it shall be entertained and the claim of the petitioner examined on merits and shall not be rejected/dismissed as barred by limitation. 9. As far as the relief claimed in this petition of an independent inquiry is concerned, the Police have not found any foul play in the demise of the son of the petitioner. It is felt that negligence if any whether of the respondent no.1 University and/or its officials and/or of respondent no.3 AIIMS will be established in the Suit to be so filed by the petitioner and as such need is not felt for any independent inquiry. I may further notice that it is the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.1 University that the son of the petitioner after being discharged from respondent no.3 AIIMS had on 3rd August, 2006 met with the Senior Warden and submitted an application under Clause 9B of the Ph.D. Ordinance and had not complained of any ill health and there was thus no reason for the respondent no.1 W.P.(C) 16906/2006 Page 6 of 6 University or its wardens to suspect that the petitioner’s son required any medical attention. All the said facts will of course be gone into the Suit which the petitioner has now taken liberty to file. 10. As far as the relief claimed by the petitioner of framing a scheme is concerned, it has been put to the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may propose a scheme to the respondent no.1 University keeping into consideration the privacy which grown up boys as the son of the petitioner was, demand in hostel. The respondent no.1 University is directed to consider the proposal if any so put up by the petitioner and if the same is not acceptable, to inform the reasons therefor to the petitioner within 60 days of the receipt thereof from the petitioner. If the petitioner remains aggrieved, he will have liberty to institute a Public Interest Litigation in that regard, in accordance with rules with respect thereto. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 3, 2011 pp..