Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 406 (HP)

Jai Pal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-19

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —Writ petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- "(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be also issued, directing the respondent No.1 & 2 to take strict/stern criminal action against the respondent No.4 to 7 for unnecessary removing the kidney of the petitioner and for their dereliction of duty while dealing with the patients like the petitioner and further, to take administrative action/departmental inquiry under the service rules against the respondent No.4 to 7. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be also issued directing the respondents to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.50 Lacs to the petitioner." 2. Allegedly, without obtaining the consent of the writ petitioner or his relatives, the Doctors (respondents No.4 to 7) of an Institution, a government owned College and Hospital (respondent No.3) , had removed his vital organ (Kidney) . This was so done at the time when writ petitioner was admitted for medical treatment sometime in the month of January, 2015. 3. We notice that the present writ petition came to be filed only on 21. 11.2017 and the delay is sought to be explained by assigning the reasons, that the writ petitioner learnt about such fact only when he went for further treatment to the Post Graduate Institute (PGI) , Chandigarh. 4. The Joint Secretary (H&FW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has filed his personal affidavit dated 21.2.2018, refuting all the allegations made in the writ petition. An inquiry was got conducted which revealed that the writ petitioner was treated as an indoor patient in Surgery Unit-II, w.e.f. 6.12.2014 to 7.1.2015 and that all procedural formalities were complied with and completed prior to the treatment being given to him. 5. We notice that the consent form is on record, clearly indicating that surgery was conducted with the prior knowledge of the writ petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, the State has offered the case of the writ petitioner to be examined by a duly constituted Medical Board. We also notice that vide letter dated 4.12.2017 itself, writ petitioner was asked to appear before the Board which he chose not to do so. 7. Despite opportunities being afforded, the writ petitioner has also not filed rejoinder to the response filed by the State. 8. We also notice that vide letter dated 4.12.2017 itself, writ petitioner was asked to appear before the Board which he chose not to do so. 7. Despite opportunities being afforded, the writ petitioner has also not filed rejoinder to the response filed by the State. 8. In view of the disputed questions of fact, we close the present proceedings, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies which are advisable in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 9. Learned Advocate General states that in the event of writ petitioner deciding to associate himself with the inquiry to be conducted by the Board, the State shall render all assistance and have the inquiry completed expeditiously by re-constituting a fresh Board. Pending application(s) , if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.