Judgment :- 1. The writ petition has been filed by the husband and the minor child of the deceased for directing the respondents 1 and 2, namely, Kilpauk Medical College and Government Hospital, to pay compensation of Rs. 17,03,000/- on account of the death of the deceased, namely, Mrs. Santha Kennedy, for the negligent medical treatment and for further directing the respondents to take appropriate action against the concerned Doctors and paramedics. 2. The petitioners case is as follows: — Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Mrs. Shantha Kennedy and Petitioner No. 2 is their minor child. The aforesaid Shantha Kennedy was admitted in the Maternity and Child Care Department of Kilpauk Medical College and Government Hospital for undergoing “Elective Lower Segment Caesarean Section” on 13.11.1997, but due to faulty and negligent medical treatment rendered by the Doctors and paramedics of Maternity and Child Care Department, she expired on 15.11.1997. Dur ing her pregnancy, she was going for periodical check-up in the Maternity Hospital of Guild of Service situated at Mangalapuram, Chetpet, Madras, which is being run by eminent social service organisation. As per the medical records maintained by such Maternity Hospital or Guild of Service, the expected date of delivery was 3.11.1997. The health condition, inclusive of weight, blood pressure, was normal. The Gynecologist attending her in the Guild of Service Maternity Hospital referred the patient to the Corporation Hospital at Shenoy Nagar to undergo a scan on 12.11.1997. The scan report confirmed the opinion of the Gynecologist that single fetus was a big baby postdated by 10 days. It further indicated that the placenta was matured and gravida 3 clacification was present and the placental liquor was just adequate and merely sufficient for induction. The gynecologist accordingly advised the patient to immediately undergo Elective Lower Segment Caesarean Section. The patient as well as her sister, who are qualified nurses, on the advice of the gynecologist proceeded to E.S.I. Hospital at Ayanavaram to undergo caesarean operation as the husband (Petitioner No. 1) was covered under E.S.I. Scheme. However, the E.S.I. Hospital authorities advised the patient and referred the case to Egmore Maternity Hospital. The patient as well as her sister, who are qualified nurses, on the advice of the gynecologist proceeded to E.S.I. Hospital at Ayanavaram to undergo caesarean operation as the husband (Petitioner No. 1) was covered under E.S.I. Scheme. However, the E.S.I. Hospital authorities advised the patient and referred the case to Egmore Maternity Hospital. The patient and her sister on 13.11.1997 had left E.S.I. Hospital and reached the Guild of Service Hospital and the gynecologist immediately advised the patient to go to Kilpauk Medical College and Government Hospital or Egmore Maternity Hospital to do L.S.C.S. Therefore the patient along with her sister and the brother of the present Petitioner No. I proceeded to Kilpauk Medical College and Government Hospital and reached the same at about 12.15 p.m. on 13.11.1997, wherein the patient was admitted. However, on 13.11.1997, the Doctors did not bother to examine the patient. On 14.11.1997 at 8.00 a.m., as the patient did not have any labour pains, the hospital authorities informed that she has to undergo a scan. While the patient and other relations were taking steps for the aforesaid purpose, there was sudden commotion regarding a missing baby in the hospital and the scan could be done only at 11.00 a.m. The House Surgeon examining the scan report informed that the condition had deteriorated and immediate cesarean surgery should be done. Petitioner No. 1 and the sister of the deceased approached several Doctors and nurses but nothing was done on 14.11.1997. On 15.11.1997 at 2.00 p.m., the patient disclosed to the present Petitioner No. 1 that the Doctors informed her that only normal delivery would be performed on her. Ultimately at about 11.15 p.m., in the night of 15.11.1997, some injection was given and the patient immediately complained of excruciating pains and become motionless. It was stated by the staff of the hospital that the patient should be taken up for the operation and at the midnight at 00.30 hours on 16.11.1997, two nurses of the respondent hospital informed that the baby was still born and since bleeding could not be stopped, uterus of the wife should be removed immediately. At 6.00 a.m., on 16.11.1997, the patient was brought out of the operation theatre and soon thereafter the petitioner and other relations were informed that Petitioner No. 1s wife had expired. At 6.00 a.m., on 16.11.1997, the patient was brought out of the operation theatre and soon thereafter the petitioner and other relations were informed that Petitioner No. 1s wife had expired. It is asserted in the writ petition that due to the negligent treatment and careless attitude of the hospital authorities, the unfortunate death had occurred. Compensation has been claimed on different heads. 3. A counter affidavit sworn by the Dean was filed on behalf of both the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Kilpauk Medical College is a teaching hospital offering undergraduate and postgraduate courses in many disciplines of Allopathic medicine, including obstetrics. The allegation regarding negligent treatment has been denied. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, it has been indicated that the patient came to the hospital at 12.45 p.m., on 13.11.1997 and at that time the patient ha d only ultra sonogram scan report. It has been further indicated: — “ The opinion of USG report was B.P.D.(Biparietal diameter) 9.3 cm, FL (Femur length) 7.4 cm, FM (Foetal movements) and FH (Foetal Heart Sounds) good. Liquor just adequate; GA (Gestational age) 39 weeks; Vortex presentation; placenta fundal posterior; gravida III maturity; Calcification present. Her blood group was A1 +ve. On admission, she was taken to the labour ward. The labour ward Civil Assistant Surgeon examined her and wrote in the hospital case sheet as follows: — Patient referred from corporation hospital, since overdue by 11 day. No pains () No draining () No bleeding () PV (per vagina) Menstrual History - 2-3/30 RMP (regular menstrual period) LMP (last menstrual period) -26/01/1997 EDD (expected date of delivery) - 02/11/1997 Marital History: married since 8 years, non-consanguineous obstetric History: G2 PIL 1 (gravida 2, para 1, live 1) First Child male Full Term Normal Delivery (FTND) Hospital A&H (Alive and Healthy) Patient had copper T (Cu T) 1 year after the 1st childbirth. Cu T kept for 2 years and then removed. Past History: No major medical or surgical illness On general examination (G.E.), Not anemic, afebrile, no pedal oedema (PE). Pulse Rate (PR) 66/minute, Blood Pressure (BP) 110/90 of Hg, Cardiovascular system (CVS) and Respiratory system (RS) showed no abnormal disease (NAD). Per abdominal (PA) examination revealed Uterus (Ut) term Not acting Head mobile Foetal Heart (FH) sounds 136/minute, regular, tone good Clinically liquor adequate Per vaginal (PV) examination revealed. Pulse Rate (PR) 66/minute, Blood Pressure (BP) 110/90 of Hg, Cardiovascular system (CVS) and Respiratory system (RS) showed no abnormal disease (NAD). Per abdominal (PA) examination revealed Uterus (Ut) term Not acting Head mobile Foetal Heart (FH) sounds 136/minute, regular, tone good Clinically liquor adequate Per vaginal (PV) examination revealed. Cervix (Cx) uneffaced, os closed, head above the brim Based on the above clinical signs and symptoms, labour ward medical officer instructed as follows: LLP (Left Lateral Position); Kick Count (Foetal Kick Count); FHR (Foetal Heart Rate) monitoring.” It has been further indicated in the counter affidavit about various check-ups undertaken from time to time. It is further indicated: — “12. 1 submit that on the morning of 14/11/1997, Dr. Shanthy M.D., D.G.O., was the labour ward medical officer. Apart from the observations made by the previous obstetricians, she wrote in the hospital case sheet of the patient that the corrected EDD (expected date of delivery) was 06/11/1997. She also found the pelvis adequate. She instructed an urgent USG scan to be performed. The USG scan opinion was single foetus; vortex presentation; BPD (Biparetal Diameter) 9.3 cm FL (Femur Length) 7.6 cms; GA (gestational age) Term; FH (Foetal Heart) good; liquor just adequate; term foetus; matured placenta. The patient was received at 11.45 a.m., after USG scan. Based on the clinical condition of the patient and her USG report, Dr. Shanthy recommended Syntocinon drip (induction). The reasons adduced by her for the induction of the labour were the just adequate liquor and term pregnancy.” In the counter affidavit it has been further indicated that Syntocinon drip was administered. Various developments have been indicated in other parts of the counter affidavit and ultimately it is stated that there was no negligence. 4. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and reserving the matter for judgment, it was felt necessary to obtain opinion of an expert not connected with this case. Accordingly, it was thought fit to obtain opinion from an expert/specialist attached to Apollo Hospitals on the following aspects: — “(1) Whether there was any delay in commencement of the treatment? (2) Whether the Elective Lower Segment Caesarean Section should have been done immediately without waiting further? (3) Whether giving of Oxytocin was proper in the circumstances? (4) Whether there was any proper monitoring? (5) Any other aspect as found fit by the Expert.” 5. (2) Whether the Elective Lower Segment Caesarean Section should have been done immediately without waiting further? (3) Whether giving of Oxytocin was proper in the circumstances? (4) Whether there was any proper monitoring? (5) Any other aspect as found fit by the Expert.” 5. Thereafter, opinion has been furnished. Copies of such opinion were served on the counsels appearing for both the parties. However, no further objection has been filed, even though the matter was listed under the heading “for being mentioned” on a few occasions. Opinion is to the following effect: — “1. When the patient came on the 14.11.1997, knowing that she is post dated she was kept for one more day without intervention. She should have had the induction of labour on the day of the admission rather than on the 15.11.1997. 2. The patients cervix was unfavourable at the commencement of syntocinon. Perhaps priming of the cervix with prostaglandin would have been better rather than starting syntocinon on unfavourable cervix that too in a multigravida. 3. Progress in labour was not satisfactory after syntocinon, inspite of that syntocinon was continued and when the progress was not satisfactory at 8.15 pm., on 15.11.1997 C/Section was indicated. Cervix dilatation was only 3-4 cm, after 12 hours of syntocinon. 4. We have to be extremely careful in giving syntocinon to multigravide patients with non favourable cervix as that can lead to ruptured uterus as happened in this case with possibility of amniotic fluid embolism, and DIC. 5. There was certain amount of delay in induction of labour and C/Section in this patient.” 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is to the effect that even when the patient was brought to the Kilpauk Medical College and Government Hospital, delivery was overdue by 9 to 10 days and, therefore, instead of waiting for two days, i.e., from 13th to 15th November 1997, the Doctors should have immediately operated the patient for delivery of baby through caesarean section and administration of syntocinon and continuance of such syntocinon, even though the progress was not satisfactory, was totally unwarranted and a case of gross negligence. 7. 7. The opinion furnished by the Specialist of Apollo Hospitals clearly indicates that patients cervix was unfavourable for administration of syntocinon and priming of the cervix with prostaglandin would have been better rather than starting syntocinon on unfavourable cervix that too in a multigravida. The opinion further indicates that the progress in labour was not satisfactory, in spite of that syntocinon was continued and when the progress was not satisfactory at 8.15 p.m. on 15.11.1997, caesarean section was indicated. Cervix dilatation was only 3-4 cm, after 12 hours of syntocinon. It is obvious from the report of the Specialist of the Apollo Hospitals that the Doctors did not pursue the proper course. It is further apparent that giving of syntocinon to a multigravida patient with non-favourable cervix had led to ruptured uterus. A bare perusal of such opinion clearly indicates that there was gross negligent treatment. (Even though the Specialist of the Apollo Hospitals out of politeness had not indicated anywhere about the negligence, she had merely stated that there was certain delay in induction of labour and cesarean section). It is obvious that delay in giving proper treatment has resulted in unfortunate death of the patient. 8. In course of hearing, the learned counsel representing the State had vehemently contended that jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the proper Forum for deciding such matters and the petitioners should have pursued their remedy under the common law. In other words, he has submitted that the petitioners should have either filed a suit or may be they could have approached the Consumer Forum. 9. The respondent hospital is a Government Hospital. In 1997, it was doubtful whether action could be taken under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against such Government Institutions. The only other alternative would have been to file a suit. It is of course true that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum to decide about the question of facts. However, the writ petition was filed in the year 1999. The death had occurred in the year 1997 and the writ petition filed in the year 1999 was admitted and kept pending. If at this stage, the petitioners would driven to file the suit, such suit would barred by limitation. The only disputed question is relating to negligence. That aspect is amply clarified by the opinion given by an independent expert to which no objection has been filed. If at this stage, the petitioners would driven to file the suit, such suit would barred by limitation. The only disputed question is relating to negligence. That aspect is amply clarified by the opinion given by an independent expert to which no objection has been filed. Even the circumstances are telltale. It is obvious even to a layman, that no effective steps were taken by the hospital authorities/Doctors for more than two days, even though by the time when the patient came to the hospital the delivery date was overdue by at least one week or so. Even if a suit would have been filed, obviously the court would have depended upon the opinion of an expert. The opinion of the expert as well as the admitted materials on record, which have been indicated in the counter affidavit by the respondents themselves, clearly indicate that there was delay in starting the proper treatment. There is no other alternative than to come to a conclusion that the death had occurred due to negligence in treatment. 10. In such view of the matter, I feel, it would be mockery of justice to now observe, after a lapse of 7 to 8 years, that the petitioners should have gone to a Civil court. According to me, in the interest of justice, the petitioners should be paid reasonable compensation by the respondents. It is difficult to assess the compensation payable in such matters. The unfortunate death has resulted in loss of consortium so far as the Petitioner No. 1 is concerned and loss of maternal affection and care so far as the Petitioner No. 2 is concerned. It is difficult to measure these aspects in golden scale. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel interest of justice would be served by directing the respondents to pay a lumpsum of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) as compensation. Out of such amount, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- should be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No. 2, minor child, till he attains majority and the balance amount shall be paid to Petitioner No. 1. 12. During pendency of the writ petition, Mr. Rajkumar Patil, Advocate, had been appointed as Commissioner to obtain relevant records from the hospital in question. 1,50,000/- should be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No. 2, minor child, till he attains majority and the balance amount shall be paid to Petitioner No. 1. 12. During pendency of the writ petition, Mr. Rajkumar Patil, Advocate, had been appointed as Commissioner to obtain relevant records from the hospital in question. Pursuant to the said direction, he had gone to the hospital and after perusal of records, he has taken charge of relevant records and produced before this Court. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) shall be paid to him towards his fees and expenditure. Such amount shall be paid by the respondents. 13. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. The directions shall be implemented within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.