HIMACHAL KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition for summoning the records of the treatment of her husband from G.B.Pant Hospital as also from LNJP Hospital and to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lacs as compensation to the petitioner for negligence in treating her husband. The petitioner has also prayed her a direction to be given to the respondents to provide necessary treatment available in India or abroad to her husband so as to restore him to his normal health. By certain ad interim orders passed by the Court it was directed to Safdarjung Hospital to examine the petitioner keeping in view the report and opinion of the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and perform physiotherapy as may be required for the treatment of the husband of the petitioner.

(2.) This petition was filed alleging inter-alia that after the radio-therapy treatment had started, once or twice lead blocks were placed on the back of the patient around the position D-7 of the Spinal Chord so that the rest of the body may not get extensive heat. It is submitted that this process was repeated on 38 days and on all days, barring a few, wet cloth gauges were used in place of lead blocks by respondent No.4. It is submitted that the concerned doctor never checked the patient during the course of the radio-therapy treatment and she never came to check up the focus of the heat on the affected portion of the patient. The contention is that the marking of the affected patient was done only once and though respondent No.4 was not even trained as a Technician for radio-therapy, she was entrusted the responsibility to impart radio-therapy treatment. Because of the treatment, it is alleged by the petitioner, the patient became lame and entire body below chest became senseless. For the alleged negligence, as already mentioned above, the petitioner has claimed compensation and other reliefs.

(3.) The question as to whether or not the treatment given to the petitioner was proper or there was any negligence and the question as to whether the precautions as mentioned in the treatment were required to be taken at the time of imparting radio-therapy treatment are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided without the aid of an expert. This Court being not an expert in deciding all these questions may not be able to decide this petition without permitting the parties to lead evidence. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, I will not, therefore, like to entertain the petition which raises disputes questions of fact. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings as may be permissible in law for seeking the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. For a period of one month from today the interim orders passed earlier by this Court will continue to enable the petitioner to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.