Allam Nagalaxmi v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lnclia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the report of the medical committee of respondent no.6's hospital dt.29 ,05.2023 opining that there was no negligence on management of preterm newborn as illegal, arbitrary and uncon stitutional, in violation of the law laid down in the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex court in Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab and set aside the same, consequentially the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate directions to form a fresh unbiased medical committee comprising of medical specialists from premier government medical institutions and hospitals for forming upon a {resh medical opinion on the death case of the infant boy of the Petitioner, whose death was caused by negligent actions of the management. of Sri lvlahalaxmi Children's Hospital, Mancherial especially respondent no.8 and responrJent no.9t. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lo stay all further proceedings in Crime No. 96 of 2022 of P.li. Mancherial Town, Manchierial District including filing of charge sheet, pendin,g disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 7 : GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 6 & 10 : GP FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 : - The Court made the following ORDER ) 0n C, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 1VRIT PETITION NO. 20158 0F 2024 ORDER: Petitioner seeks to declare the medical committee report of the 6d' respondent hospital, daLed 29.05.2O23 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. She further requests formation o[ 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 2O22, 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, infalt was sent to Sri Mahalaxmi Hospital, Mancherial, where Respondents 8 and 9 were employed. The 8ff respondent assured petitioner that the hospital had the latest facilities and i:xpert docrors available 24x7, and based on this assurance, the child u'as admilted to the hospital at 5:4O a.m. on the same day. The 9'r' respondenL, who was told to be a specialist in paediatrics, along with the Srh respondent, treated the infant and informed petitioner that chilcl's health condition was good. 2 While so, on 20.O3.2022, at around 'Z:30 a.n:.., there was commotron in the hospital and nursesi and :he gs respondent werc seen hurrying from infant's room. On inquiry, the 8fr respondent informed petitioner's husbancl that child had difficulty in breathing at 2:OO a.m. When asked why tht: family was not informed earlier, the Sfr respondent claimed himself and the 9th respondent were busy treating the child. However, Attender revealed that the 8s respondent was not present at the hospital duriDg night. It is stated, at that stage, rhe gft respondent .advised pctitioner to shift the child to another hospital as the condi[ion had become critical. Immediately, petitioner shifted the infant to Star Hospital, Karimnagar. where doctors revealed that child's condition had worsene,C and survival was unlikell. and if an ABG test had been conducted at Sri Mahalaxmi Hospital at the time of admission, the chik;i could have been savcd. The infant passed away due to complications. After funeral on 21.O3.2022, petitioner confr,lnted t),re grh respondent about the treatment and the absence of AB() test, for which, the latter admitted that hospital lacked the facitity for ABG testing, despite advertising it in their 'pamphlets. It .s also discovered that the 9tl, respondent was not querlified t(; treat J newborns, as he held only a BAMS degrec. A complaint was subsequently filed at the 7e respondent police Station, leading to registration of Crime No. 96 of 2022 under Section 3O4_A read with Section 34 IPC. I t is stated, inquiry was initiated by the Srt respondent - District Medical and Health Officer on OI.O4.2022, and a three-member committee was formed under the instructions of the 3.,,1 respondent - District Collector. The committee's report, submitted on 06.04.2022, was approved by the 3.d respondent on 2a.O4.2O22 and was referred to Medical Board, which was constituted by the 6ff respondent - Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Mancherial comprising Dr. P. Nagaveni (Convenor), Dr. Srilatha (Anaesthesia), and Dr. Prashant (Pulmonologr). 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 5h respondent and the unqualihed status of the 96 respondent. Petitioner states that the Sth respondent forwarded compliance report on 30 .06.2022 to the 3.d respondcnt; subsequently, on 29.12.2022, the 5h respondent forwarded 4 another letter lo the 4h respondent - Director of Public Health & Family Welfarr: regarding the said report. Another report dated

07.O1.2O23 q,as made rvhereunder the Board examineri. CCTV footage ancl qtLalihcations of Respondent No. 9 which not,:d that the 9fi respo:rdent was a BAMS-qualihed government doctor u,orkrng at CHC Atthini Clinic and allowed to practice rlutside government hours. The report concluded t.here was no negligence ir,:. the lreatment. It is the further case of pelitioner that the report failed to address the lack of qualifications of the 9e responde;-rt and the absence of the 8th respon<lent during the emergency. A lurther report dated 29.O5.2023, impugned in this Writ Petrtion, based on additional CCTV footage, state d that trained staff and a male duty medical officer wert: present- in the NICU. The con-rmittee concluded that there was no negligence in t]le manage ment of the pre-term newborn. Accord ing to petitioner, the report deliberately excluded the role of the th respondent, llho u,as unqualified and stationed 60 km. away from the hospital. Petitioner hled Consumer Cornplaint Irlo. 200 of 2023 before the District Consumer Dispute Rerlressal Commission alleging negiigence by Respondents 8 and 9 and other hospital staff. She contends that negligence of t-he 8th t \ 5 respondent in leaving an unqualifred person as the dut5r medical officer caused the death of the child' The case of Respondents 8 and 9' as couid be seen 3. from the counter-affidavit hled by them, is that petitioner' of three separate expert committees despite the findings Superintendent of Government General constituted bY the Hospital, the District Medical & Health Ofhcer (DM&HO)' and the District Collector, Mancherial, Government of Telangana' . The exPert continues to allege medical negligence against them committees, through their reports dated

25.O5.2022, stated that have categoricallY

07.O7.2O23, and 29.05.2023, 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 2g.O5.2O23 and to seek a roving inquiry amounts to a witch hunt and abuse of lhe 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 os. Mohd. IshJaqt. ' alp 2oo9 sc 2049 6 I t is stated that the 9ft respondent, a Homeopathy doctor, is employed as support staff and he rLeither l.,rovides independent treatment nor is advertised a:; 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 neu,born exhibited respiratory distress and c.,,anosis and did not cry vigorously post-delivery. The 8th respondent artended the delivery upon the request of petitioner's husbar rd and performed resuscitation as per NRP guidelines; due to baby's critical condition, including respiratory distress and clanosis, newborn was rransported with oxygen support to Sri Mal'Lalaxmi Children Hospital, Mancherial, for further rnanagement in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The transportati()n was conducted via ambulance with proper medical support.; daily health updates were provided to petitioner's family, explaining the bab1,'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 \ medlcal prot(]( ols. The critical condition of the baby, attributed 7 l''l 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 Rpspondent No. 8's dedicated efforts aimed to deliver the highest quality neonatal care under challenging circumstances. It is stated, on 21.O3.2O22, at 1O:3O AM, while the 8fi 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 signihcant disturbance within the hospitai, car-rsing distress to the hospital staff, patients, and their relatives and abused them which caused dent to the reputation ofi the hospital' When staff members attempted to intervene and protect the \oseital 8d'respondent, they were physically assaulted by them' The 8d' I 8 f\ respondent approached Mancherial Police Station to Lrdge a formal complaint against petitioner's husband and Mr. Mohan- Despite presenting evidence, including video footag': and documentation supporting the allegations of oflen st-'s under Sections 448, 352, 355,29O,323, 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (lPC), the Station House Ofhcer (SHO), Mr. Narayana Nayak, delayed action under :he pret.ext of conducting a preliminary inquiry. On 22-03 2022, Respondent No. 8 submitted a formal report, acknowledged un<ler Doc:ument No. RM/MNCL-RMGD/22O3221OO3O7, and marked colries to higher authorrtres. Despite these efforts, no action rvas taken. Due to the lack of police cooperation and perceived bias favouring petitioner's husband, the 8th respondent hled a private complaint before the II Additional Judicia i First Class Magistrate at Mancherial and it 1s pending consideration. In contrast, a complaint alleging meclical negligence against the 81h respondent filed by petitioner's husban,C, was promptly registered by the same SHO. t \ 9

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.O5.2022, O7.O1.2O23, 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 altegation 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 Matheu a. Sta'te oJ PuniaV.

5. Learned counsel for Respondents 8 and 9 Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mqthear's case observed that 1aw is a watchdog, not a bloodhound, and held that doctors performing their duties with ' (2oos) 6 scc 1 I l0 \ f- reasonable care would not incur liability even il t he treatment failed'. Similarly, in Martin F. D'Souza's czrse [sup.a), the Court laicl down guidelines to protect doctors agai; rst Iiivolous complair-rts. According to learned couns,3l, thes,: judgments emphasize that liability for medical rLegligence must be determined based on evidence and expert opinion, cnsuring that professionals are not harassed unnecessarill,. Resp,tndent No. 8 respectfully submits that the Petitioner's l)lea to set aside the medical committee's report dated 29.O5.2023 and conduct a fresh inquiry constitutes an abuse of legal process and amounts to a baseless witch hunt. The Respondent rciterates the findings of the expert committees, which exonerate the liespondents from any wrongdoing.

6. Petitioner filed rejoinder stating that CCTV lootage revieu,ed as part of the medical comntittee report dated

29.O5.2O23 shows that the 8ft respondent was not recorded as being present at the times indicated in the ccunter a ffidavit. She highlights the fact that the 96 respondent clespite being a Homeopathic Doctor, was employed as th e DMO during the night shift and was overseeing the NICIJ when the infant \ \ 4l Ei ll 11 petltroner developed severe complications that eventually led to death' The further questions why a Homeopathic Doctor was during such crilical hours, appointed especially when the infant was in a life-threatening condition to oversee the NICU Having heard learned counsel on either side and 7. having perused the material on record' it is to be seen' petitioner's primary aliegation is that there was medical negligence in the treatment of the infant and the 9th respondent' who was a BAMS-quaiihed doctor, was unqualified to treat the infant and that the 8s respondent was absent during critical momentsoftheinfant,scare.Thepetitionerafguesthatthe 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. t \

8. In light of the concerns raised regarding the previousmedicalcommitteereports,withoutexpressingany I I opiniononmeritsofthematter,thisCourtdeemsitappropriate I I t2 t. Lo order formation of a new medical committee, conrprising specialists fiom premier government medical institutrons, to revieu. the case and provide an independent asscssment of thc treatment provided to the infant. 9 . T]'re Writ Petition is therefore, dispo sed of d irecting 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 Ch, Idren,s Hospital, Mancherial especially, Respondents g and 9 and submit a detailed report within one month from the ilate of receipt of a colt_t, of this order.

10. F'or the said purpose, list the Wr.it petition orr

04.O3.2025. No costs 1 l. Oonsequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if an1' shall stanrl closed. SD/.N.SRIHAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE GOPY// To 1 u \ TION OFFICER 1 2 .) 4 5 6 ThePrincipalsecretary,HomeDepartment,secretariatBuildinqs'Secretariat' State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ine principar Secretary'-Department of Health and Farnily Welfare' Secretariai Buildings, Secreiariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad' The District Collect,or, Mancherial District, Telangana State' The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Hyderabad' The District Medical and Health officer, Mancherial, Mancherial District, Telangana State. The S'uperintendent, Government General Hospital, Mancheria, Telangana State. 7

7. The Station House Officer, Mancherial Town Police Station, Mancherial, Telangana State. B. The District Medical and Health Officer, Asifabad, Asifabad Diskict. 9. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

10.Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

11.Onq-CC to SRI NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI, Advocate [OPUC] 12.Two CD Copies \ SA BSK G' r .1 t I ${, sr{,[s .i e e ) t_) 11FrJ ?u5 z l r'. 2tt .s r,Arcr{ E,' t HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 ORDER WP.No.20158 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \