IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24273 of 1999 Between: Smt. A.Ramabhushanam, W/o Late Sri Dr.A.Satyanarayana, C/o A.Maheswara Rao, D.No.1-8-702/32/41/B-1, 1st Floor, Padma Housing Colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 44 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Medical & Health Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P., (Medical & Health), rep. by its Superintendent, Govt. General Hospital, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Government of A.P., (Medical & Health), rep. by its Director, Dr. K.Nageswara Rao, Government General Hospital, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The Government of A.P., (Medical & Health), Staff Nurse, Government General Hospital, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call for the records from the Respondents and initiate departmental enquiry against respondents 3 and 4 herein on the basis of orders dt. 17.9.1996 in complaint No.2453/93/B2 on file of Lokayuktha of A.P., Hyderabad and grant Rs. 6.00 lakhs or appropriately as exemplary damages for the carelessness and negligence of the Respondents which resulted the death of the petitioner’s husband Dr. A.Satyanarayana which is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India or to issue appropriate direction is the notice of Writ of Mandamus. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, A.Ramabhushanam w/o.late Dr.A.Satyanarayana, Government Medical Officer, who died on 12.5.1992, at Government Hospital in Guntur on account of medical negligence. The petitioner filed complaint No.2453/93/B2 before the Lokayuktha and the Lokayuktha by orders dated 17.9.1996 observed that Dr.K.Nageswara Rao was not guilty of any negligence, but one Dr.C.M.Krishna Murthy was guilty of negligence in not attending to the cardiac ward and not supervising the cardiac ward which he was expected to do and recommended a punishment of censure against Dr.C.M.Krishna Murthy. The Lokayuktha also directed the Government to initiate departmental enquiry and take action against the duty doctor O.M.Kalyani, who recommended the patient to be admitted in Intensive Coronary Care Unit (I.C.C.U), but did not take proper care to see that he was admitted in the I.C.C.U and attended to during the night and also against the Assistant Cardiologist Dr.J.Venkateswara Rao, who ought to have attended on the patient in the morning between 9.00 a.m., to 11.00 a.m., but failed to do so during that time and also against the Staff Nurse, who ought to have shifted the patient as per the O.P. ticket to I.C.C.U., but sent him to Male Ward. The Lokayuktha directed an enquiry by the Secretary to Health into the conduct of the Doctors and the Staff Nurse before taking departmental action against the persons responsible for negligence of duty. Some other observations are also made which are not relevant here. Consequent on the recommendations of the Lokayuktha and on the instructions of the Director of Medical Education in Rc.No.5114/E2.B/95, dated 18.12.1996, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Director of Medical Education on 25.2.1997 and he observed that the deceased Dr.A.Satyanarayana died on account of sudden cardiac arrest, that such sudden cardiac death also occur in well equipped centres with well trained personnel, that the patient was admitted in I.C.C.U by one of the doctors when there was no vacancy immediately, he was shifted by the doctors and he was given utmost care in General Ward as if he was in I.C.C.U and that there was no negligence or lapse of attention by the medical officer and staff nurse and on enquiry from various sources the enquiring authority came to the conclusion that the persons involved in the allegation were reputed, hard working with a sense of duty and concluded that there was no negligence or lapse regarding the admission or treatment of Dr.A.Satyanarayana and that no further action is necessary in the matter and any action taken against the medical officers and staff will demoralize the duty bound doctors and staff nurses in future. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she shall be granted compensation/damages for the death of her husband on account of negligence on the part of the doctors. As seen from the record, the Lokayuktha found prima facie material with regard to the negligence of the doctors and directed the Government to conduct enquiry and accordingly the Additional Director of Medical Education conducted enquiry and found that there was no negligence on the part of the doctors. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as there is prima facie material with regard to the negligence of the doctors, as found by the Lokayuktha, the petitioner may be granted compensation. We are not inclined to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In pursuance of the orders of the Lokayuktha, the Additional Director of Medical Education conducted enquiry and gave finding that there was no negligence. Though there is prima facie case with regard to the negligence of the doctors in view of the enquiry conducted and the finding of the Lokayuktha, it is not sufficient for awarding compensation, this being question of fact has to be proved before awarding compensation. The best way is to claim compensation through Consumer Forum. Hence, we hold that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Consumer Forum for claiming compensation. We clarify that the question of limitation shall not come in the way of filing of any such claim for compensation in view of the pendency of these proceedings. In case any petition is filed by the petitioner claiming compensation, Consumer Forum concerned shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of one year from the date of the filing. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 10.7.2009 kpr