Telangana High Court
Allam Nagalaxmi vs The State Of Telangana on 28 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 20158 OF 2024
O R D E R:
Petitioner seeks to declare the medical committee
report of the 6th respondent hospital, dated 29.05.2023 as
illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. She further requests
formation of a fresh, unbiased medical committee comprising
specialists from premier government medical institutions to
examine the case.
2. The case of petitioner is that on 13.03.2022, she
was admitted to Srilatha Hospital, Mancherial on account of
labour pains; after undergoing surgery, gave birth to a male
child, however, due to premature delivery, infant was sent to Sri
Mahalaxmi Hospital, Mancherial, where Respondents 8 and 9
were employed. The 8th respondent assured petitioner that the
hospital had the latest facilities and expert doctors available
24x7, and based on this assurance, the child was admitted to
the hospital at 5:40 a.m. on the same day. The 9th respondent,
who was told to be a specialist in paediatrics, along with the
8th respondent, treated the infant and informed petitioner that
child's health condition was good.
While so, on 20.03.2022, at around 7:30 a.m., there
was commotion in the hospital and nurses and the 8th
respondent were seen hurrying from infant's room. On inquiry,
the 8th respondent informed petitioner's husband that child had
difficulty in breathing at 2:00 a.m. When asked why the family
was not informed earlier, the 8th respondent claimed himself
and the 9th respondent were busy treating the child. However,
Attender revealed that the 8th respondent was not present at the
hospital during night. It is stated, at that stage, the 8th
respondent advised petitioner to shift the child to another
hospital as the condition had become critical. Immediately,
petitioner shifted the infant to Star Hospital, Karimnagar, where
doctors revealed that child's condition had worsened and
survival was unlikely and if an ABG test had been conducted at
Sri Mahalaxmi Hospital at the time of admission, the child could
have been saved. The infant passed away due to complications.
After funeral on 21.03.2022, petitioner confronted the 8th
respondent about the treatment and the absence of ABG test,
for which, the latter admitted that hospital lacked the facility for
ABG testing, despite advertising it in their pamphlets. It is also
discovered that the 9th respondent was not qualified to treat
newborns, as he held only a BAMS degree. A complaint was
subsequently filed at the 7th respondent Police Station, leading
to registration of Crime No. 96 of 2022 under Section 304-A
read with Section 34 IPC.
It is stated, inquiry was initiated by the 5th
respondent - District Medical and Health Officer on 01.04.2022,
and a three-member committee was formed under the
instructions of the 3rd respondent - District Collector. The
committee's report, submitted on 06.04.2022, was approved by
the 3rd respondent on 28.04.2022 and was referred to Medical
Board, which was constituted by the 6th respondent -
Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Mancherial
comprising Dr. P. Nagaveni (Convenor), Dr. Srilatha
(Anaesthesia), and Dr. Prashant (Pulmonology). The said Board
submitted report on 25.05.2022 stating that there was no
evidence of negligence in the treatment done to infant. However,
it is alleged, the report failed to consider the action of the 5th
respondent and the unqualified status of the 9th respondent.
Petitioner states that the 5th respondent forwarded
compliance report on 30.06.2022 to the 3rd respondent;
subsequently, on 29.12.2022, the 5th respondent forwarded
another letter to the 4th respondent - Director of Public Health &
Family Welfare regarding the said report. Another report dated
07.01.2023 was made whereunder the Board examined CCTV
footage and qualifications of Respondent No. 9 which noted that
the 9th respondent was a BAMS-qualified government doctor
working at CHC Atthini Clinic and allowed to practice outside
government hours. The report concluded there was no
negligence in the treatment. It is the further case of petitioner
that the report failed to address the lack of qualifications of the
9th respondent and the absence of the 8th respondent during the
emergency. A further report dated 29.05.2023, impugned in this
Writ Petition, based on additional CCTV footage, stated that
trained staff and a male duty medical officer were present in the
NICU. The committee concluded that there was no negligence in
the management of the pre-term newborn. According to
petitioner, the report deliberately excluded the role of the 9th
respondent, who was unqualified and stationed 60 km. away
from the hospital. Petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No. 200
of 2023 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission alleging negligence by Respondents 8 and 9 and
other hospital staff. She contends that negligence of the 8th
respondent in leaving an unqualified person as the duty medical
officer caused the death of the child.
3. The case of Respondents 8 and 9, as could be seen
from the counter-affidavit filed by them, is that petitioner,
despite the findings of three separate expert committees
constituted by the Superintendent of Government General
Hospital, the District Medical & Health Officer (DM&HO), and
the District Collector, Mancherial, Government of Telangana,
continues to allege medical negligence against them. The expert
committees, through their reports dated 25.05.2022,
07.01.2023, and 29.05.2023, have categorically stated that
there is no medical negligence on the part of these respondents
in the unfortunate death of petitioner's newborn male child. The
current attempt by petitioner to set aside the latest report dated
29.05.2023 and to seek a roving inquiry amounts to a witch
hunt and abuse of the process of law. This position aligns with
the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jacob Mathew's case (supra) and Martin F. D'Souza
vs. Mohd. Ishfaq 1.
AIR 2009 SC 2049
It is stated that the 9th respondent, a Homeopathy
doctor, is employed as support staff and he neither provides
independent treatment nor is advertised as the primary
paediatrician. In the case concerning petitioner's deceased son,
Respondent No. 9 followed Respondent No. 8's directives
without any independent involvement in treatment. It is stated,
the newborn exhibited respiratory distress and cyanosis and did
not cry vigorously post-delivery. The 8th respondent attended
the delivery upon the request of petitioner's husband and
performed resuscitation as per NRP guidelines; due to baby's
critical condition, including respiratory distress and cyanosis,
newborn was transported with oxygen support to Sri Mahalaxmi
Children Hospital, Mancherial, for further management in
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The transportation was
conducted via ambulance with proper medical support; daily
health updates were provided to petitioner's family, explaining
the baby's condition in an understandable manner. It is
asserted that all necessary medical interventions were provided
in a timely and professional manner, adhering to standard
medical protocols. The critical condition of the baby, attributed
to extreme prematurity and associated complications, was
communicated transparently to the Petitioner's family
throughout the treatment period. The 8th respondent denied the
allegations of medical negligence, emphasizing the care and
expertise provided during the critical golden hour and
throughout baby's NICU stay. The hospital's sophisticated
equipment and Respondent No. 8's dedicated efforts aimed to
deliver the highest quality neonatal care under challenging
circumstances.
It is stated, on 21.03.2022, at 10:30 AM, while the
8th respondent was attending to his duties, petitioner's
husband, Mr. Allam Narender, a Circle Inspector posted at
Luxettipet, Mancherial District, along with Mr. Mohan, Circle
Inspector, CCS Ramagundam, and approximately 10 other
individuals, unlawfully entered the premises and created a
significant disturbance within the hospital, causing distress to
the hospital staff, patients, and their relatives and abused them
which caused dent to the reputation ofi the hospital. When
hospital staff members attempted to intervene and protect the
8th respondent, they were physically assaulted by them. The 8th
respondent approached Mancherial Police Station to lodge a
formal complaint against petitioner's husband and Mr. Mohan.
Despite presenting evidence, including video footage and
documentation supporting the allegations of offenses under
Sections 448, 352, 355, 290, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Station House Officer (SHO),
Mr. Narayana Nayak, delayed action under the pretext of
conducting a preliminary inquiry. On 22.03.2022, Respondent
No. 8 submitted a formal report, acknowledged under Document
No. RM/MNCL_RMGD/220322/00307, and marked copies to
higher authorities. Despite these efforts, no action was taken.
Due to the lack of police cooperation and perceived bias
favouring petitioner's husband, the 8th respondent filed a private
complaint before the II Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate at Mancherial and it is pending consideration.
In contrast, a complaint alleging medical negligence
against the 8th respondent filed by petitioner's husband, was
promptly registered by the same SHO.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Damodar Reddy
appearing on behalf of Sri Nageswar Rao Pujari, learned counsel
for petitioner submits that reports dated 25.05.2022,
07.01.2023, and 29.05.2023 clearly show bias. According to
learned Senior Counsel, each report was hastily brought upon,
while the subsequent report tries to supplement the same
without even considering all the factors; moreover, the said
committee reports do not speak about the role of Respondents 8
and 9 against whom the allegation of medical negligence is
levied. Further the reports are silent on the fact that the
ambulance driver was present in NICU where he is not
permitted to be in. This clearly shows the biased nature of the
report of enquiry. It is submitted that reports do not adhere to
the parameters established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab 2.
5. Learned counsel for Respondents 8 and 9 Sri Sama
Sandeep Reddy submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jacob Mathew's case observed that 'law is a watchdog, not a
bloodhound, and held that doctors performing their duties with
(2005) 6 SCC 1
reasonable care would not incur liability even if the treatment
failed'. Similarly, in Martin F. D'Souza's case (supra), the Court
laid down guidelines to protect doctors against frivolous
complaints. According to learned counsel, these judgments
emphasize that liability for medical negligence must be
determined based on evidence and expert opinion, ensuring that
professionals are not harassed unnecessarily. Respondent No. 8
respectfully submits that the Petitioner's plea to set aside the
medical committee's report dated 29.05.2023 and conduct a
fresh inquiry constitutes an abuse of legal process and amounts
to a baseless witch hunt. The Respondent reiterates the findings
of the expert committees, which exonerate the Respondents
from any wrongdoing.
6. Petitioner filed rejoinder stating that CCTV footage
reviewed as part of the medical committee report dated
29.05.2023 shows that the 8th respondent was not recorded as
being present at the times indicated in the counter-affidavit. She
highlights the fact that the 9th respondent despite being a
Homeopathic Doctor, was employed as the DMO during the
night shift and was overseeing the NICU when the infant
developed severe complications that eventually led to death. The
petitioner further questions why a Homeopathic Doctor was
appointed to oversee the NICU during such critical hours,
especially when the infant was in a life-threatening condition.
7. Having heard learned counsel on either side and
having perused the material on record, it is to be seen,
petitioner's primary allegation is that there was medical
negligence in the treatment of the infant and the 9th respondent,
who was a BAMS-qualified doctor, was unqualified to treat the
infant and that the 8th respondent was absent during critical
moments of the infant's care. The petitioner argues that the
medical committee reports were biased and did not properly
examine those key issues. Respondents 8 and 9, on the other
hand, argue that committee reports were comprehensive and
based on a thorough review of the case. They assert that the
reports found no negligence and that the petitioner's allegations
are without merit.
8. In light of the concerns raised regarding the
previous medical committee reports, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate
to order formation of a new medical committee, comprising
specialists from premier government medical institutions, to
review the case and provide an independent assessment of the
treatment provided to the infant.
9. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of directing
the Superintendent, Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad to appoint an
Expert's Committee which shall decide whether there is any
medical negligence on the part of Sri Mahalaxmi Children's
Hospital, Mancherial especially, Respondents 8 and 9 and
submit a detailed report within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
10. For the said purpose, list the Writ Petition on
04.03.2025. No costs.
11. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
28th January 2025
ksld
