Order Alleging medical negligence on the part of the third respondent and seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the death of his wife, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The painful case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is thus: 2.1. The wife of the petitioner was admitted in the District Government Hospital, Thenkarai, Periyakulam, on 28.05.2011 for delivery and she gave birth to a baby girl on 29.05.2011 and the third respondent is the Duty Doctor in the said Hospital at the relevant time. On 02.06.2011, the third respondent performed Family Planning Operation on the wife of the petitioner and thereafter, her health got deteriorated and hence, she was shifted to Theni Medical College Hospital for further treatment, wherein she was declared dead. 2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Thenkarai Police Station and a case in Cr.No.238 of 2011 came to be registered and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. In the final opinion regarding the cause of death, it is opined that 'the deceased would appear to have died of retained placenta and its complication thereof 17 hrs. to 21 hrs. prior to autopsy. 2.3. The petitioner also sent a legal notice dated 21.05.2013 to the respondents 2 and 3 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), followed by a representation dated 31.05.2013, however, the claim of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents 1 and 2 so far and hence, the present writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is, inter alia, contended thus: 3.1. The deceased Angalaeswari was assessed in Anesthetists after delivery and found fit for puerperal sterilization and accordingly, it was done on 02.06.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. 3.2. During the post-operative period, she complained pain in both legs at 07.15 p.m., on 02.06.2011. 3.3. Since her health condition got deteriorated, she was referred to Theni Government Medical College Hospital wherein she was declared dead. 3.4. It is admitted that the cause of her death was due to the retained placenta after delivery. 3.5. The third respondent had taken care of the deceased Angalaeswari both at the time of delivery as well as sterilization. 3.6. Since her health condition got deteriorated, she was referred to Theni Government Medical College Hospital wherein she was declared dead. 3.4. It is admitted that the cause of her death was due to the retained placenta after delivery. 3.5. The third respondent had taken care of the deceased Angalaeswari both at the time of delivery as well as sterilization. 3.6. The deceased was under the supervision of the trained staff and doctors between 29.05.2011 and 02.06.2011. 3.7. Therefore, the Government cannot be mulcted with liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner, alleging medical negligence on the part of the third respondent and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition. 4. Whereas the third respondent, denying the claim of the petitioner, filed the counter affidavit, wherein, it is, among other things, stated as under: 4.1. First of all, the third respondent did not attend the deceased either on 28.05.2011 or perform delivery on 29.05.2011 and it could be seen from the Register concerned. 4.2. The third respondent attended the deceased only on 02.06.2011 to perform the family planning operation, based on her willingness for the same and it was done successfully. 4.3. After the said family planning operation performed by the third respondent, the deceased was normal. 4.4. Later, she complained of pain in her legs and thereafter, she was shifted to Theni Government Medical College Hospital, however, she was declared dead. 4.5. It is denied that the health condition of the deceased got deteriorated within two hours of the family planning operation. 4.6. Neither in the post-mortem report nor in the enquiry report of the second respondent, there was no medical negligence found in respect of the family planning operation. 4.7. Therefore, the third respondent prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition. 5. Mr. B. Saravanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: 5.1. The deceased had lost her life only due to the medical negligence on the part of the third respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner for the death of his wife. 5.2. The third respondent cannot simply refute the medical negligence on her part, as the second respondent has clearly stated that the third respondent had alone taken care of the deceased both at the time of delivery as well as sterilization. 5.3. 5.2. The third respondent cannot simply refute the medical negligence on her part, as the second respondent has clearly stated that the third respondent had alone taken care of the deceased both at the time of delivery as well as sterilization. 5.3. In the post-mortem report as well as the final opinion regarding the cause of death, it is categorically opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to retained placenta. 5.4. When that being so, the respondents cannot shirk their liability to compensate the petitioner properly. 5.5. In similar circumstances, this Court, in R. Shamugakani and two others v. The Director, Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai - 6, [W.P(MD)No.13867 of 2011, decided on 08.08.2014], has come to the aid of the petitioner therein for compensation on the ground of medical negligence. He, therefore, prayed for the above relief. 6. Mr. K. Guru, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, contended thus: 6.1. Though the deceased Angalaeswari was assessed in Anesthetists after delivery and was found fit for puerperal sterilization, which was done on 02.06.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. during the post-operative period, she complained pain in both legs at 07.15 p.m., on 02.06.2011. 6.2. Thereafter, she was referred to Theni Government Medical College Hospital wherein she was declared dead. 6.3. It is admitted that the cause of her death was due to the retained placenta after delivery and the third respondent had taken care of the deceased Angalaeswari both at the time of delivery as well as sterilization. The deceased was under the supervision of the trained staff and doctors between 29.05.2011 and 02.06.2011. 6.4. The Government cannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, for the alleged medical negligence on the part of the third respondent and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition. 7. Whereas Mr. The deceased was under the supervision of the trained staff and doctors between 29.05.2011 and 02.06.2011. 6.4. The Government cannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, for the alleged medical negligence on the part of the third respondent and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition. 7. Whereas Mr. S. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent refuted the claim of the petitioner and contended that the third respondent had not attended the deceased at the time of her delivery and she had performed the family planning operation on 02.06.2011, on the basis of her willingness expressed for the same and after the said family planning operation, the deceased was normal, however, she complained of pain in her legs and thereafter, she was shifted to Theni Government Medical College Hospital, but, she was declared dead. Further, it is contended that no such medical negligence was found either in the post-mortem report or in the enquiry report of the second respondent and hence, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable and prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 9. Here, the petitioner has lost his wife, who was admitted in the hospital for delivery, because of the negligent act of the Doctor who attended her at the time of delivery, as the placenta was not properly removed from her uterus. 10. It is seen that in the final opinion regarding the cause of death, it is opined that 'the deceased would appear to have died of retained placenta and its complication thereof 17 hrs. to 21 hrs. prior to autopsy. The respondents did not deny the same in their respective counter affidavits and therefore, it is crystal clear that the cause of her death was not disputed by the respondents. 11. In similar circumstances, this Court, while dealing with the medical negligence, in R.Shamugakani and two others v. The Director, Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai - 6, [W.P(MD)No.13867 of 2011, decided on 08.08.2014], has elaborately considered the issue regarding the compensation for the death of the wife of the petitioner therein and held as under: "16. Doctor is the best friend of a man, who is suffering from sickness. Doctor is the best friend of a man, who is suffering from sickness. A poor man, who could not take treatment in a private hospital, comes to the Government Hospital, with a fond hope that he would get treatment from the Government Hospital and return back home, without disease. In the case on hand, the Doctor, who conducted surgery, due to the callous attitude, had taken away the precious life of a woman, which has to be condemned and cannot be permitted in a civilized society. Such type of negligence really put to peril of a layman. A doctor, who treats a patient, should take sufficient care of normal prudence, which is the legitimate expectation of every patient, who approaches the hospital for treatment. 17. In our Country, majority of citizens, requiring medical care and treatment, fall below the poverty line. Most of them are illiterate or semi-literate. They cannot comprehend medical terms, concepts and treatment procedures. They cannot understand the functions of various organs or the effect of removal of such organs. They do not have access to effective but costly diagnostic procedures. Poor patients lying in the corridors of hospitals, after admission, for want of beds or patients waiting for days on the roadside for admission or a mere examination, is a common sight. For them, any treatment with reference to rough and ready diagnosis based on their outward symptoms and doctors experience or intuition is acceptable and welcome so long, as it is free or cheap; and whatever the doctors decide as being in their interest, is usually unquestioningly accepted. They are a passive, ignorant and uninvolved in treatment procedures. 18. The poor and needy face a hostile medical environment inadequacy in the number of hospitals and beds, non-availability of adequate treatment facilities, utter lack of qualitative treatment, corruption, callousness and apathy. Many poor patients with serious ailments, like heart patients and cancer patients, have to wait for months together for their turn even for diagnosis and due to limited treatment facilities, many die even before their turn comes for treatment. What choice do these poor patients have?. Any treatment of whatever degree, is a boon or a favour, for them. The stark reality is that for a vast majority in the country, the concepts of informed consent or any form of consent and choice in treatment, have no meaning or relevance. 19. What choice do these poor patients have?. Any treatment of whatever degree, is a boon or a favour, for them. The stark reality is that for a vast majority in the country, the concepts of informed consent or any form of consent and choice in treatment, have no meaning or relevance. 19. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that this Court is conscious of the fact that in the decision in Martin F.D'Souza v. Mohd.Ishfaq reported in 2009 (2) Supreme 40 , the Supreme Court held that if a doctor treated a patient with ordinary care, then anything happens to the patient, the doctor concerned cannot be blamed, unless it is established that there is a criminal negligence on the part of the doctor in the manner known to law. In the case on hand, the negligence is not denied and the negligence on the part of the doctor is clearly established by postmortem report. But, the question is against whom such negligence could be attributed. 20. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life, which includes right to get meaningful health care, especially during maternity/delivery period. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the state to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. 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 Article 21. 21. The Code of Medical Ethics drawn up with the approval of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Indian Council Medical Act and observed is as follows:- "Every doctor whether at a Government Hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services for protecting life. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes or otherwise cannot be sustained and, therefore, must give way." 22. On the basis of the evidence on record and arriving at a categorical finding that the death had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the doctors, this Court has computed the compensation. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes or otherwise cannot be sustained and, therefore, must give way." 22. On the basis of the evidence on record and arriving at a categorical finding that the death had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the doctors, this Court has computed the compensation. As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), 50% of the actual salary should be added towards future prospects, by adopting a rule known as "Rule of Thumb", provided the deceased was below 40 years. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand, at the time of death, the deceased was hardly 23 years old. As per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case, multiplier to be adopted is 17. 23. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased, salary of the deceased, family status, the other attendant circumstances and as per the calculation memo produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.12,55,000/- under the following heads:- Loss of income Rs.7,25,288/- Loss of consortium for husband Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of Love and Affection for two children Rs.2,00,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs.2,00,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.12,55,288/- 24. The first respondent had already sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3, vide G.O.Ms.No.81, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 25.04.2003. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of a sum of Rs.10,05,000/-, which is rounded off to Rs.10,00,000/- and the same shall be paid by the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents 4 to 6, so as to fix the liability and thereafter, recover the said amount from them, after conducting a thorough enquiry. 25. The Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs." 12. A careful analysis of the materials available on record, would reveal the following facts: 12.1. 25. The Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs." 12. A careful analysis of the materials available on record, would reveal the following facts: 12.1. The deceased Angalaeswari was assessed in Anesthetists after delivery and was found fit for puerperal sterilization and it was also performed on 02.06.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. 12.2. During the post-operative period, she complained pain in both legs at 07.15 p.m., on 02.06.2011. 12.3. As her health condition got deteriorated, she was referred to Theni Government Medical College Hospital for further treatment, however, she was declared dead. 12.4. It is admitted by the respondents 1 and 2 that the cause of her death was due to the retained placenta after delivery, as revealed by the post-mortem report as well as the enquiry report of the second respondent. 12.5. According to the respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent had taken care of the deceased Angalaeswari both at the time of delivery as well as sterilization, however, it was disputed by the third respondent. 12.6. The deceased was under the supervision of the trained staff and doctors between 29.05.2011 and 02.06.2011. 13. In the case on hand, a valuable life of a woman was taken away by a Doctor, who attended her at the time of delivery, by not removing the placenta properly and it ended in fatal to her life. No doubt, it is the duty of the Doctor who attended a patient at the time of delivery, to remove the placenta from the uterus, failure thereto, would cause heavy bleeding leading to loss of life too. 14. Also, the petitioner made a complaint with the jurisdictional police as to the medical negligence, which led to the death of his wife and a criminal case was also registered in this regard. Moreover, the respondents 1 and 2 have categorically admitted that the death of the wife of the petitioner was only due to the retained placenta, because of the medical negligence on the part of the third respondent. However, this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot delve deep into the disputed question of facts and therefore, this Court has not gone into the same. 15. However, this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot delve deep into the disputed question of facts and therefore, this Court has not gone into the same. 15. However, in the light of the earlier order of this Court in R.Shamugakani and two others v. The Director, Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai - 6, [W.P(MD) No.13867 of 2011, decided on 8.8.2014], this Court passes the following order: (i) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 31.05.2013 for the death of his wife, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to initiate appropriate action against the third respondent so as to fix the liability and thereafter, recover the said amount from her, after conducting a thorough enquiry. (iii) The third respondent is also at liberty to put forth her case at the time of enquiry and submit all necessary materials to prove her claim, in the manner known to law. 16. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.