NIDESH KUMAR MATHUR Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents No.3 to 5 on his representation dtd. 14/11/2022 to the respondent No.8 and the subsequent representation dtd. 21/11/2022, as illegal, arbitrary and to declare the refusal of treatment to the petitioner on 7/11/2022, as illegal, arbitrary and as professional misconduct and to declare the condition imposed by the respondents for seeking the sanction or approval from the Police authorities for treatment of Medico Legal Cases, as illegal, arbitrary and to direct the inquiry against the respondents No.3 to 7 and to initiate appropriate departmental and disciplinary action or any such other action and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances in the case.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that he is married to one Shruti and two children are born out of the marriage i.e., son Ansh and daughter Arpitha Mathur. It is submitted that there were frequent disputes between him and his wife and on 7/11/2022 at around 21 hours, petitioner was assaulted by his son in which the petitioner sustained injuries. It is submitted that the petitioner went to Osmania General Hospital and met respondents No.6 and 7, but when the Doctors on duty and the CMO learnt that it was a Medico Legal Case (MLC), they refused to give any treatment and instead suggested the petitioner to first report the incident in the concerned Police Station and obtain the request from the Police Station to enable them to treat the petitioner and issue MLC. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the doctors blankly refused treatment and stated that they will not treat MLC cases without the approval of the Police and therefore, the petitioner went to a local doctor, one Mr.Bharat Prakash and got treatment from him for his injuries. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondents No.6 and 7 in giving treatment to him, the petitioner has allegedly made representations dtd. 14/11/2022 and 24/11/2022, but according to the petitioner, there was no action taken by the respondents No.3 and 4 against the doctors, therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit.