RAJMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the above application for compliance of order, dated 22-9-1989 passed by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3967 / 1989 filed by the applicant-petitioner. This Court while disposing of the writ petition allowed the same in terms of its order, dated 22-9-1989 with the direction to the State Government for conducting thorough inquiry into the matter and the circumstances resulting in the death of the petitioner's wife Smt. Lalitabai while she was being operated for Laproscopic Tubectomy on 2nd April, 1989 at Primary Health Centre, Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur. This Court had also directed vide the said order that a high level inquiry to be initiated into the matter so as to ascertain the cause of death of Smt. Lalitabai and to fix the responsibility for negligence, if any, on the concerned Doctor. It was further directed that if the circumstances leading to the death of the petitioner's wife were accidental on account of carelessness and negligence on the part of the Doctor then appropriate compensation shall be paid by the State Government to the petitioner within two months from the said date.

(2.) Pursuant to the above directions of this Court an inquiry was conducted into the matter by the Enquiry Committee constituted by the State Government. The said Enquiry Committee submitted its report to the State Government on 15-7-1992. The conclusions as well as the recommendations of. the said Committee mentioned in the inquiry report are self-explanatory containing startling revelations which are as under:-

(3.) While cardiac arrest due to pneumo peritoneal needle insertion is rare but not unknown, we feel that the life of the patient could have been saved if adequate resuscitative facilities e.g. Endotracheal an aesthesic, defibrillator and cardiac monitoring equipment had been available. Since every human life is equal, we feel that whenever laproscopic tubectomy is being done whether in a major hospital or in smaller hospitals or in a laproscopic tubectomy Camp, a trained anaesthetist with M. S. degree in anaesthesiology, and the above mentioned equipment should be available. This should be mandatory for every laproscopic tubectomy operation, in view of the sensitive nature of the operation and the fact that the patient is young, disease free and healthy. Other than the lack of the above mentioned resuscitative equipment and trained anaesthetist, we find no evidence to doubt the competence or integrity or efforts made by Dr. C. P. Gupta."