NITIN SHARMA Vs. MOHAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is submitted by petitioner himself that brother of petitioner is a handicapped person and as B.P. Stent which was installed inside the body of brother of petitioner had stopped working, therefore, he took his brother to Kamla Raja Government Hospital, Gwalior. Accordingly, he was admitted on 27/12/2023. Since condition of his brother was deteriorating, therefore, he was referred to Neuro Surgery Department. Dr. Anand Sharma who was posted in Neuro Surgery Department suggested the petitioner to admit his brother in a private hospital. Since financial condition of petitioner is not good, therefore, he did not admit his brother in a private hospital. However, Dr. Aditya Shrivastava and Dr. Avinash Sharma refused to admit his brother in the Neuro Surgery Department and also suggested that petitioner should take his brother to a private hospital. Accordingly, under compulsion, petitioner got his brother admitted in Jay Arogya Hospital, Gwalior in general surgery department. It is alleged that during the admission of his brother in Neury Surgery Department, the condition of his brother deteriorated. Petitioner took his brother to OPD on 8/1/2024, but Dr. Ashish Shrivastava did not come to OPD. Because of negligent attitude of the doctors of a government hospital, petitioner took his brother to government AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi and as the petitioner had not taken any appointment, therefore, his brother could not be treated at AIIMS hospital. Thereafter, petitioner took his brother to Civil Hospital, Gujarat where his brother remained admitted for a period of one month and he was operated thrice. Thus, it is submitted that on account of negligent act of doctors of Jay Arogya Hospital, Gwalior life of brother of petitioner had come in danger. Thus, it is prayed that legal action should be taken against them. During course of arguments, it was contended by petitioner that FIR should be registered against the doctors who are negligent in performance of their dutues.

(3.) Considered the submissions made by petitioner.