Judgment : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to constitute a panel of experts to examine the petitioner for treatment for removal of forceps embedded in her body. 2. In the supporting affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the deponent would contend that he is the Editor of the Magazine ‘Junior Vikatan’ which is well known for its investigative journalism that he has personally taken up in the public interest, the cause of the petitioner who is a poor and helpless lady and came seeking his help in her plight on account of the negligence committed on the part of the Medical Practitioners in the Kasthuriba Gandhi Hospital for Woman and Children, Triplicane, wherein a forceps measuring nine inches in length had been left inside her body after a surgery held for tubular pregnancy and for a long time, the cause of the pain had not been revealed to the petitioner and recently an X’ray revealed the presence of the object which is embedded in the body; that no Doctor ventured to remove the said object and petitioner this is afraid of going to the Government Hospital for the reason that she may die or that the Doctors may hush up for the negligence would be exposed; that on legal advice that the Government is bound to constitute a panel of expert Doctors to examine the petitioner and remove the metallic object without causing danger to life and further to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000 in favour of the petitioner since her suffering was caused on account of the negligence on the part of the hospital and hence he has come forward to file the supporting affidavit in favour of the petitioner. .3. Today when the above matter has been taken up for consideration the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents, have nothing to argue contra to the facts revealed in the pleadings of the writ petitions. .3. Today when the above matter has been taken up for consideration the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents, have nothing to argue contra to the facts revealed in the pleadings of the writ petitions. So far as it is concerned with the negligence of the Doctors of Kasturba Gandhi Hospital for Women and Children, Triplicane, the 3rd respondent herein wherein the petitioner was admitted for treatment of the tubular pregnancy in the year 1986 and during the course of the operation nine inches long forceps had been left inside and the operated portion closed and thereafter for a continuous period of seven years the petitioner had been subjected to the unbearable pain and untold hardships and on the deponent to the supporting affidavit having come to the rescue of the petitioner, since being the Editor of an investigative journal the writ petition had come to be filed seeking a direction to the respondents to constitute a panel of experts to examine the petitioner for treatment and for removal of the said forceps embedded in her body. 4. It is further revealed that in nine days from the date of such direction given by this Court a team of Senior Doctors headed by the Dean of the Madras Medical College Hospital had been constituted and on their prompt attendance and the surgery held, the instrument carelessly left inside the body of the petitioner had been safely removed without causing any damage to her life vital organs of the stomach. However, though got relieved of the forceps, the pain and suffering, the mental agony and affliction that the petitioner had undergone for seven long years and what shall be the compensation that shall be ordered is the short point that falls for consideration now. 5. Thepetitioner has sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000 on account of the negligence committed on the part of the Doctors who conducted the surgery in the year 1986 when he was admitted for the removal of the tubular pregnancy for having been so careless to have left the nine inches long forceps inside the stomach, while closing the operated portion which is not at all in dispute. It is also not in dispute that ultimately by the efforts of the deponent of the supporting affidavit a timely direction had been issued by this Court and the forceps embedded in her body came to be removed by the panel of Doctors constituted for the purpose without any hindrance or danger to the life of the petitioner. Hence the point that falls for determination is what shall be the amount of compensation to be ordered on account of the negligence committed on the part of the Medical Officers of the Government Hospital further taking into consideration of the physical suffering and mental agony for seven long years. The petitioner would seek an amount of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation and from the records placed before this Court to-day in Ref.No.2771/P&D/99 of the 3rd respondent Hospital with Annexures would reveal that on the part of the respondents a committee had been constituted to decide the quantum of compensation and on the recommendations of the committee they have agreed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000 as the compensation amount since that being a justifiable amount according to their estimate and the learned Government Pleader would ascertain the payment of this amount to the petitioner. .6. On the contrary the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner explaining the seven years continuous hardships of the petitioner when bearing the instrument in her body pricking and causing such pain and running from post to pillar seeking help in her poverty stricken condition and without trusing any of the Government Doctors too, till she met the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which had been purely on account of sheer negligence and irresponsibilities exhibited on the part of the Doctors and of the 3rd respondent Hospital and would contend that a lakh of rupees as prayed for in the petition by the petitioner not only from the point of view of her sufferings but also from the point of view of her very condition being in penury, herself jobless and her husband being a cooly the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000 as prayed for is quite reasonable and the same could be easily granted with reasonable interest and costs. 7. 7. On the part of the learned Government Advocate on the writ side it would be contended that it was neither wilful nor wanton but on account of sheer negligence on the part of the doctors who conducted the operation in the year 1986 and in fact it got removed by a team of experts of the Government Headquarters Hospital, Madras, without charging a pie or even without causing any concern for her life nor is there any complaint on the part of the petitioner during the post operative period and hence would feel that the amount of Rs.50,000 that is agreed to be sanctioned on the part of the respondent would be the fair amount of compensation. .8. It is a case in which, it is not traceable as to who were the Doctors, who performed the surgery for tubular pregnancy on the petitioner during the year 1986, but admittedly, it had been done in the third respondent hospital. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would cite a judgment delivered in Achutrao H.Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra Achutrao H.Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra Achutrao H.Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2377 where it is held: Even if it be assumed that it is second operation performed by Dr.Divan which led to the peritonitis, as has been deposed to by Dr.Purandare, the fact still remains that but for the leaving of the mop inside the peritoneal cavity, it would not have been necessary to have the second operation. Assuming even that the second operation was done negligently or that there was lack of adequate care after the operation which led to peritonitis, the fact remains that Dr.Divan was an employee of respondent No.1 and the State must be held to be vicariously liable to the negligence acts of its employees working in the said hospital. The claim of the appellants cannot be defeated merely because it may not have been conclusively proved as to which of the doctors employed by the State in the hospital or other staff acted negligently which caused the death of Chandriksbai. Once death by negligence in the hospital is established, as in the case here, the State would be liable to pay the damages. Once death by negligence in the hospital is established, as in the case here, the State would be liable to pay the damages. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court clearly fell in error in reversing the judgment of the trial court and in dismissing the appellants suit. 9. Thelearned counsel would cite yet another judgment delivered in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal , (1996)2 S.C.C. 286. (S.C.) wherein it is held: The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at the federal level as well as at the state level. In a welfare state the primary duty of the government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare State. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centers which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail those facilities. Art.21 imposes and obligation the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importaince. The Government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Art.21. 10. The Government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Art.21. 10. On a overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, this Court is the view that the amount of Rs.1,00,000 that has been prayed for as compensation by the petitioner was in the year 1993 and seven long years have rolled by and on account of inflation and such other conditions that are prevalent at present and in deeper consideration of not only the gross negligence committed on the part of the responsible Medical Officers attached to the Government Kasturba Gandhi Hospital for Women and Children, Triplicane and the physical and mental sufferings of the petitioner for seven long years is immeasurable in terms of money and hence an amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000 in the considered opinion of this Court is quite reasonable and justifiable and hence it is hereby ordered that the respondents are jointly and severally liable for effecting the payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000 in favour of the petitioner within two months from the date of service of this order on them. 11. In result, the above writ petition so far as it is concerned regarding the compensation it succeeds and the same is allowed with the directions given in the foregoing paragraphs of this order. Consequently the writ miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.