IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4712 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. DR.S.BALACHANDRAN, NANDANAM, PULLAD, THIRUVALLA. 2. DR.LAILA ASOKAN, DEEN HOSPITAL, T.B.JUNCTION, PUNALUR. 3. DR.VINOO BALAKRISHNAN, F4, LAKE SIDE APARTMENTS, THOPPIL KADAVU, KOLLAM-9. BY ADVS. MR.S.SREEKUMAR MR.P.MARTIN JOSE MR.P.PRIJITH MR.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, (CONVENOR, APEX BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER CIRCULAR NO. 41501/SSB3/2000/HOME DATED 17-01-2004 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMANA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 4712 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Doctors under the respondent herein. They are accused in Crime No.590/06 of Punalur Police Station, alleging offence under Section 304 IPC. The case was registered consequent on the death of a patient in a surgery conducted in the Deen Hospital, Punalur. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 Circular contains various procedures for registration of crimes against Doctors for acts of commission or omission in the medical case of patients. Clause 1 of the circular provides that the Investigating Officer while conducting investigation of such alleged criminal negligence shall refer the case to an expert panel consisting of three members. Clause 2 of the Ext.P1 provided for an Apex Body consisting of 4 numbers. Clause 2 of Ext.P1 also provides an appeal to the Apex Body by affected Doctors. 2. By Ext.P2 circular, Ext.P1 circular was modified by the Government. According to the petitioners, the Expert Panel concluded that there is evidence for injection into spinal canal puncturing the dura is consistent with attempt of administration of spinal anaesthesia. Against the same the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Apex Body as per Ext.P3. Since Ext.P3 appeal did wpc:4712 of 2009 2 not evoke any response, the petitioners filed another representation as Ext.P4. Since the Exts.P3 and P4 are pending, there will be a direction to the respondent to take appropriate action on Exts.P3 and P4 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps