1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.11.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No. 12856 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 Dr.Mullaikodi ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of TamilNadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (K2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 2. The Director of Medial and Rural Health Services,Chennai - 6. 3.Joint Director of Health Services/ Enquiry Officer, Nagapattinam. 4.The Chief Civil Surgeon, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned G.O.(Pa).No. 1049 dated 13.9.2011 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.TR.Janathanan, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner, Dr.Mullaikodi aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the first respondent-the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare(K2) Department, G.O. (Pa) No. 1049 dated 13.9.2011, has come to this Court by filing the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India on the ground that the impugned order is illegal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was serving in the fourth respondent-Government Hospital, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, one Dr.Shanmugam, Assistant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Surgeon, has conducted laparoscopic family planning operation to one Tmt.Rakkammal on 17.11.2005. The said Doctor Shanmugam being a duty Doctor till 7am on 18.11.2005 after he left from the hospital, the petitioner took charge and attended the patient and accordingly, the petitioner advised the patient Tmt.Rakkammal to get discharged on the same day after giving medicine. Subsequently, on the same day the petitioner applied for leave for 16th day ceremony of her father-in- law on 19.11.2005. 3. The hospital staff asked the petitioner to come to the hospital by informing that the case sheet of the patient Rakkammal has been misplaced and in view of the request received from the hospital staff, the petitioner has issued a new case sheet. For that, the petitioner was issued with Charge Memo on 18.10.2008 and the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation and the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and without providing sufficient opportunity, the third respondent closed the enquiry and submitted a non speaking one line order imposing punishment of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect against the petitioner. 4. That was challenged by filing an earlier Writ petition in W.P. No. 7512 of 2011. In the above Writ Petition, this Court, after considering the reason and the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner, held that the disciplinary authority while passing the previous punishment order has not properly considered the stand taken in the explanation setting aside the said order and on that basis, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 5. It was pleaded that the first respondent, on remand, has once again repeated the same order without reflecting the consideration of her explanation and the learned counsel pleaded that the first respondent ought to have considered the petitioner's explanation properly for the reason that even in the earlier occasion, to the charge memo when a detailed explanation was given by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority by non-speaking order imposed a punishment, similarly even on remand, it has been pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the first respondent by passing the present impugned G.O.(Pa)No. 1049 has repeated the same mistake by not assigning any good reasons. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the same by remanding once again the matter back to the authority. 6. The said argument does not find any merits for more than one reason. A reading of the impugned order clearly and vividly shows that the petitioner while treating the deceased patient Tmt.Rakkammal has not taken sufficient care and more than that, the allegation of replacement of the case sheet of the deceased Tmt.Rakkammal was found against the petitioner. On that basis, the petitioner has been awarded with the punishment of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect. 7. The disciplinary authority while considering the negligence of the petitioner doctor has found that on 18.11.2005 at about 11a.m. the petitioner examined the deceased patient Rackammal and as a precautionary measure, she has prescribed one bottle of R.L and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 another bottle of D.N.S. along with one Jendamycine 1cc, Perinam 1 cc, Ranitidin 1 ample to be given to the deceased patient. Further, she has also advised the staff in-charge of the hospital to discharge the deceased on the same day. Further, she has also given in writing in her case sheet to discharge the patient. Subsequently, on the same day afternoon, while the petitioner doctor examined the patient, it was found that the patient was having diarrhea; In spite of illness continued with the patient, the petitioner doctor had erroneously discharged the patient from the hospital. This shows that the careless attitude and dereliction of duty upon the petitioner doctor. When a doctor in a hospital finds that his patient is having diarrhea that indicates that the patient is not fit for discharge. Ironically, the petitioner allowed wrongly to discharge the patient. As a result, the patient had died and when the petitioner doctor was informed about the death of such patient, she immediately came to the hospital and altered the case sheet by erasing her recommendation to discharge the patient. This clearly indicates the petitioner's dereliction of duty and medical negligence. However, the punishment imposed against the petitioner being not a major one, this Court does not find any infirmity or error to interfere with the impugned order. Further, when the impugned punishment has been imposed on the basis of the report of the expert in the medical field, this court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot find fault with the same and accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. Principal Secretary,Health and Family Welfare (K2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 2. The Director of Medial and Rural Health Services,Chennai - 6. 3.Joint Director of Health Services/Enquiry Officer, Nagapattinam. 4.The Chief Civil Surgeon,Medical Officer, Government Hospital,Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 39500 ses ssk/09.12.2011 /6c -3p/- W.P.(MD)No. 12856 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/