SISHIR RANJAN SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner, in addition to his claim for compensation, sought for a direction commanding the respondents to upgrade the standard of medical service of all the hospitals in the State in general and G. S. Hospital, Agartala in particular and for ensuring the service of Specialised Doctor in the time of needs of the patients.

(2.) The facts pertaining to the present petition can be summarised as below : The petitioner's son Ashim Saha met a vehicular accident on 9-7-1992 and succumbed to the injuries, virtually unattended medically in G. B. Hospital, Agartala in the evening of the said day. The petitioner's son while was coming Agartala from Udaipur riding a Scooter sustained a minor injury in a road accident occurred at Surjyamaninagar under Amtali Police Station at about 4 p.m. on 9-7-1992. He was a trained Automobile Mechanic with graduation in Commerce and was carrying on an Automobile Workship at Udaipur Town, South Tripura District. Just after the accident the relatives of Ashim, namely, Sudip Podder took injured to the chamber respondent No. 5 Dr. Promathesh Roy, (Dr. P. Roy) who was incharge of E.N.T. Department of G. B. Hospital, Government of Tripura, of course, initially, the injured was brought to the private chamber of Dr. Mahapatra, another E.N.T. Specialist who having observed the complication advised the patient party to go the Senior Specialist Dr. P. Roy, in his chamber. Immediately, they rushed to the chamber of Dr. P. Roy. Dr. P. Roy prescribed some medicine and advised the party to proceed immediately to G. B. Hospital and further assured that he would be coming soon to the hospital to attend the patient. Having full faith; trust and confidence, the patient party rushed to the G. B. Hospital along with the patient and the Junior Medical Officers at emergency duty admitted the injured in G. B. Hospital. They also arranged for taking X-Ray of the wounds of the injured, but it was noticed that the condition of the injured had rapidly been deteriorating. Doctor of Emergency Ward contacted Dr. Roy over telephone urging upon him to come immediately as an urgent operation was needed to save the life of the patient. Awaiting sometime, perplexed nervous relatives of the injured again rushed to the chamber of Dr. P. Roy and begged him to save the life of the injured Ashim. Dr. Roy assured of coming, soon, the relatives returned to the hospital, but Dr. Roy never came. After sometime it was noticed that the injured virtually was sinking. The relatives again rushed to the chamber of Dr. Roy and requested his co-operation, but Dr. Roy, repeated the same telling that he would come soon on completion of attending his private patients. The relatives came back and urged upon the Junior Doctors to do whatever they could to saue the life of the injured. The attending Doctors though juniors made an arrangement for minor operation to be conducted upon "trachea" of injured Ashim as without "tracheostomy" the life of the patient could not be saved. From 4.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. virtually no effective treatment was given to the injured who breathed his last at about 8 p.m. The said unnatural premature death of Ashim Saha undoubtedly led to a chaotic situation in the hospital and the bereaved relatives became angry, did some untoward activities. The local daily news paper came out with exciting news on the following morning which drew the attention of the Government, and the Government also constituted one man administrative enquiry committee headed by Mr. L. K. Gupta, Commissioner of Taxes, to "enquire into the circumstances leading to the death of one Ashim Saha in G. B. Hospital, Agartala on 9-7-1992. In the meantime, the father of the deceased Ashim moved this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the matter was put in subjudice, the Government did not publish the enquiry report though Mr. L. K. Gupta, having recorded the evidence of concerned individuals and on consultation with the records and documents, furnished his report on 26-8-1992. On the prayer of the petitioner, the said report was called for only for the inspection of the Court.

(3.) Perhaps on appreciation of the enquiry report furnished by Mr. L. K. Gupta, the State respondent has taken neutral role by not filing the counter-affidavit. The learned Senior Government Advocate at the time of hearing submits that the State Government has neither supported the contention made by the petitioner nor it opposed the same and has decided to leave the matter to the discretion of the Court to decide whatever thinks fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.