JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to take appropriate action against the Doctors and other persons responsible for the death of petitioner's wife and child in the womb and also to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioner as a relief to loss his wife and child in the womb.) 1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take appropriate action against the Doctors and other persons, who are responsible for the death of his wife and child in the womb and also to direct the respondents to pay Rs.30 lakhs as compensation. 2. This Court, by an order, dated 26/2/2021, has passed the following order:- The Petitioner seeks compensation for the death of his wife, who had been admitted at the Kudavasal Government Hospital in connection with her pregnancy. 2. The facts of this case are undoubtedly tragic. While at the Kudavasal Government Hospital, the Petitioner's wife developed complications and was shifted to multiple hospitals such as the Tiruvarur Medical College and Hospital and the Thanjavur Government Hospital. Eventually, she died on 15.02.2009. A little earlier, the unborn child in womb, also did not survive. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there was medical negligence not only in the mode of treatment provided to the Petitioner's wife but also in respect of the inadequate facilities and infrastructure that were available at the Kudavasal Government Hospital. As a consequence, she contends that it became necessary to shift the Petitioner's wife from one hospital to another and the medical condition of the Petitioner's wife worsened as a result thereof. Therefore, she contends that this is a clear case of medical negligence not only in the abject failure to provide adequate medical treatment, but also as regards the failure to provide requisite facilities at the hospital concerned. Learned counsel also contends, in this regard, that the patient was shifted for a distance of about 60 kms from the Tiruvarur Medical College and Hospital to the Thanjavur Government Hospital, while she was in a critical condition and that this contributed to her death. 4. Learned counsel also contends, in this regard, that the patient was shifted for a distance of about 60 kms from the Tiruvarur Medical College and Hospital to the Thanjavur Government Hospital, while she was in a critical condition and that this contributed to her death. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that adequate medical facilities were available at the hospital at which the Petitioner's wife was treated and that the death of the Petitioner's wife occurred on account of medical complications associated with pregnancy which arise in a small proportion of cases. 5. I had called for the original medical records during one of the previous hearings and upon examining such records, an order dated 22.12.2020 was issued recording, in relevant part, as under: “2. The Petitioner's wife, who was in the final stages of pregnancy, died in hospital. Out of the organs that were harvested for post-mortem purposes, the heart and lungs were later reported to be missing. I had called for and examined the original medical records. From the discharge summary, I noticed that the deceased patient developed pulmonary oedema, which is fluid collection in the lungs, and that lasix was administered intravenously to resuscitate the patient. Such efforts failed and she had to be given ventilatory support and eventually died of cardiopulmonary arrest. Nonetheless, a subsequent communication is on file stating that the missing heart and lungs did not materially impact the determination of cause of death. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Petitioner's wife, namely, the deceased patient, was very anaemic and her blood pressure was much below normal when she was first admitted at the Kodavasal Government Hospital. Thereafter, she was admitted in the Thiruvarur Hospital and shifted to two hospitals in Thanjavur, including the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. With regard to the cause of death, she submits that the doctor who attended on the patient has also logged in and would be able to better explain the cause of death. Thereafter, Dr.Ananthi explained that the deceased patient developed a pregnancy-related complication, which is referred to as abruptio placentae or placental disruption, which was in a severe Grade-III stage. As a consequence of abruptio placentae, she submits that coagulation failure occurred which triggered antipartum haemorrhage. Thereafter, Dr.Ananthi explained that the deceased patient developed a pregnancy-related complication, which is referred to as abruptio placentae or placental disruption, which was in a severe Grade-III stage. As a consequence of abruptio placentae, she submits that coagulation failure occurred which triggered antipartum haemorrhage. On account of these complications, there was severe vaginal bleeding and various measures were undertaken to arrest the bleeding and save the patient's life including by performing a full hysterectomy. Unfortunately, the patient's life could not be saved. 4. In response to a question as to how it can be said that the heart and lungs were not material for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death, the doctor explained that the patient may have eventually died of cardio-pulmonary arrest but the cause of death was anti-partum hemorrhage caused by coagulation failure and that the determination of the cause of death could be made reasonably accurately with the available organs of which the kidney would be the main organ. 5. In light of the aforesaid explanation, two aspects should be examined. First, whether there was medical negligence in diagnosing the condition of the Petitioner's wife and in providing a reasonable standard of treatment, and whether an independent medical opinion should be called for in that regard. The second aspect is the attribution of responsibility to the Government for the loss of two principal organs of the deceased patient, which were harvested to ascertain the cause of death. On this aspect, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that she would obtain instructions as to whether the Government is willing to consider the payment of compensation and other related aspects. On account of the nonappearance of the learned counsel for the Petitioner at the hearing today, list the case on 21.01.2021 for further hearing.” 6. Thus, two related but distinct aspects are required to be examined. First, whether there was medical negligence in diagnosing the condition of the Petitioner's wife and providing a reasonable standard of care, including by providing requisite medical facilities at the hospitals concerned. Apart from indicating that the applicable standard is a reasonable standard of medical care, which should be assessed with reference to place and time, including reasonable standards of medical equipments and facilities, this exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court and entails expert medical opinion. Apart from indicating that the applicable standard is a reasonable standard of medical care, which should be assessed with reference to place and time, including reasonable standards of medical equipments and facilities, this exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court and entails expert medical opinion. On the basis of expert medical opinion, the payment of compensation, if any, on this count should be decided. The second aspect relates to the attribution of responsibility to the Government as regards the admitted loss of two principal organs of the deceased patient which were harvested in order to ascertain the cause of death. With regard to the second aspect, the undoubted position is that the organs were lost while in the custody of the relevant hospital authorities and, therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of compensation to be paid for such purpose. 7. Consequently, I am of the view that a Committee should be constituted in order to examine the relevant medical records and ascertain whether the death of the Petitioner's wife was on account of the negligence of the doctors or the hospitals concerned, as also to decide on compensation. For this purpose, I issue the following directions: (1) the second Respondent is directed to constitute a committee consisting of not less than three senior medical doctors in Government service of whom at least two should be senior obstetricians, and one should have experience in assessing facilities and infrastructure at hospitals. In addition, one person from the Finance Department should be included in the committee for the purpose of determining compensation. (2) The terms of reference of the said committee shall be as under: (i) To determine whether there was negligence either in providing a reasonable standard of medical care to the Petitioner's wife or in providing a reasonable standard of medical facilities at the hospitals concerned. (ii) If it is concluded that there was medical negligence, the quantification and recommendation of the compensation payable to the Petitioner. (iii) Irrespective of whether there is medical negligence, the quantification and recommendation of the compensation payable to the Petitioner with regard to the loss of two principal organs from the cadaver, namely, the heart and lungs. 8. (ii) If it is concluded that there was medical negligence, the quantification and recommendation of the compensation payable to the Petitioner. (iii) Irrespective of whether there is medical negligence, the quantification and recommendation of the compensation payable to the Petitioner with regard to the loss of two principal organs from the cadaver, namely, the heart and lungs. 8. The report of the committee shall be submitted to this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in a sealed envelope for purpose of issuance of further directions on that basis. 9. The original medical records are being returned to the learned Special Government Pleader for the above purpose. List the case on 19.07.2021. 3. Pursuant to the above, a Committee was constituted by the Government, consisting of medical experts. The Chief Accounts Officer, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai, filed a report stating that the deceased was anemic, which resulted in the tragic death of foetus and there was no medical negligence. The deceased was transferred to Tiruvarur Medical College and Hospital and Thanjavur Government Hospital, wherein also, it was concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the Doctor and despite proper treatment, she could not survive. In respect of the fixing of compensation for missing parts of heart and lungs, it was indicated in the enquiry report that after autopsy, heart and lungs were collected and sent through Mr.Gunasekaran, Constable and the petitioner is not cooperating for enquiry for many years. Since some parts have been misplaced, the Enquiry Committee has recommended for Rs.6 lakhs (Rupees Six lakhs only) as compensation. 4. Even though the negligence has to be proved for awarding compensation, the fact remains, in this case the Court appointed Enquiry Committee after detailed enquiry has also found despite there was no medical negligence in the death of the petitioner's wife, however the report clearly indicates that there were negligence on the part of the officials at the time of conduct of autopsy as certain human body parts were missing. The Enquiry Committee has clearly found out that compensation has to be awarded for the reckless attitude of the persons. The Enquiry Committee has clearly found out that compensation has to be awarded for the reckless attitude of the persons. Though individual responsibility could not be fixed, considering the manner in which human organs were handled in a callous manner, unless some compensation is paid as directed by the Enquiry Committee unscrupulous Government servants will continue to do their work recklessly. To arrest such act in future, as recommended by the Enquiry Committee, this Court is inclined to grant compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the petitioner. The State is bound to pay it and it is open to the State to initiate appropriate enquiry against the persons responsible for missing human body parts and also recover the compensation amount from the concerned persons. 5. Considering the fact that there is no medical negligence and Enquiry Committee has recommended Rs.6 lakhs for missing of heart and lungs, this Court is of the view that Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) is just and reasonable for the act done by the people, who were present at the time of autopsy, and unnecessarily removed the vital organs. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the State is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the writ petitioner, as compensation. No costs.