Courts cannot interfere with medical decisions taken by Speciality Doctors: Madras HC denies relief to woman alleging medical negligence

The court was hearing a petition filed by K Mubeena Banu, who claimed that her son has been suffering from an ailment owing to medical negligence on the part of a Primary Health Centre (PHC) in the New Washermenpet area of Chennai and sought a compensation of Rs 25 lakh.

She alleged that the PHC had failed to perform a mandatory "anomaly scan" when she was pregnant with her second child. It was only after she delivered the child that she realised that her newborn son had facial deformities and a cardiac anomaly called “Truncus Arteriorsus Type-1”.

The petitioner informed the court that the child was then referred to the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children for speciality treatment wherein the child was referred to take Echo Cardiogram. A Cardio Thoracic Surgery (CTS) was later recommended for further treatment.

However, while she had taken her son to the institute after one month as directed by the institute and was waiting to get an opinion on the CTS, the physician who was on duty allegedly denied treatment and directed her to leave the hospital informing that there was no scope of life to the child.

Thereafter, she visited private hospitals to assess the status of the child, where the doctors rendered that the surgery procedures should have been advised within 4 to 6 months as per protocol. Since the child has crossed that age, it is not viable to treat the disease.

Resultantly, she filed a writ petition in 2017, after which a team of expert doctors was constituted to examine the child.

Considering the arguments, the Court opined that scope of writ of mandamus for grant of compensation cannot be expected. It said that the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts regarding the medical negligence or otherwise. It observed;

"The High Court cannot act as an expert body with reference to the medical terminology and expert opinion of the speciality Doctors for treating patients are final unless the contrary is proved. Trial natured proceedings cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

However, it noted that the child was receiving treatment from a team of specialty doctors and that this itself was a "concession" granted to her.

"Hundreds of children are provided treatment in the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children. Our Great Nation has got huge population and the Government Hospital is flooded with patients for treatment. The Government Hospitals are bound to provide treatment to all the patients visiting the Hospitals. No doubt, speciality treatments are to be provided with reference to certain peculiar cases and such decisions are taken by the Speciality Doctors on assessment of patient," the court said.