Madras High Court: In a civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’)against the judgment passed by the Subordinate Court granting Rs. 5 lakhs compensation to the respondent, S.M Subramaniam, J. that the State must pay the compensation and thereafter recover the same from the Doctors and the Officials, who have committed an act of medical negligence, administrative apses or dereliction of duty. Further, it directed the petitioners to conduct an enquiry and initiate all appropriate action following the service rules.
In this case at hand, the respondent instituted a suit claiming compensation for medical negligence committed by the Doctors in the hospital by conducting surgery erroneously in the eye, making the respondent totally blind. adjudicated the issues and delivered a judgment and decree. After getting the judgment in her favour, the respondent filed for execution proceedings, that were pending before the Sub Court for the past 5 years. Finally, the Execution Court passed an order on 29-09-2022 attaching the movables of the petitioners and challenging the said order, the present civil revision petition was filed
The Court said that the respondent has established the medical negligence before the Trial Court, as the eye surgery was done erroneously, and she lost her vision totally and became blind. The respondent cannot made to run pillar to post for realisation of the compensation amount, which was granted by the Trial Court in the year 2016 itself. If at all the revision petitioners are of the opinion that they have got a better case, they should have initiated appropriate steps within a reasonable period. Now after a lapse of about six years from the date of decree, if a lenient view is taken, then the same will result in an injustice to the medical victim, who lost both her eyes and became blind totally on account of the said surgery.
Further, it was said that the petitioners have slept over the opportunity available to them under CPC, and now after a lapse of about six years and after passing an order of attachment of movables by the Execution Court, they cannot come forward for the purpose of reopening the suit, which was disposed of in the year 2016.
Thus, the Court held the financial loss to the public is to be recovered proportionately by fixing the responsibility amongst all the officials, who have committed an act of administrative lapses, negligence and dereliction of duty.
[Dean, Government Medical College Hospital v. District Magistrate, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 6004, decided on 23-12-2022]
Advocate who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Special Government Pleader A. Edwin Prabhakar.
*Apoorva Goel, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
