01Facts
The petitioner underwent a Caesarean section with tubectomy at a Corporation Maternity Hospital on 4 September 2010.
pp. 2–4In January 2022, a scan and X-ray at Kilpauk Government Hospital revealed a surgical needle, approximately 5 cm long, in her abdomen; she underwent surgery to remove it.
pp. 2–4She complained that the needle had been left during the 2010 procedure and sought action against the doctor who performed it.
pp. 2–4After submitting complaints and a representation without obtaining an enquiry, she filed this writ petition.
pp. 2–4The respondents relied on the delay of approximately 12 years in approaching the Court
p. 502Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s delay in approaching the Court justified declining to consider her complaint of alleged medical negligence
p. 5ii.Whether the Tamil Nadu Medical Council should consider the petitioner’s complaint and determine what action, if any, was warranted after hearing the parties and examining the medical records
p. 603Law Applied
The judgment cites no statute, regulation, or precedent.
It applies the principle that delay need not prevent consideration of a complaint where the circumstances may explain the delay and the available medical records disclose a matter requiring investigation.
pp. 5–6The Court directed the Tamil Nadu Medical Council to hear the petitioner and the doctor, consider the relevant medical records and hospital report, and pass necessary orders
pp. 5–604Reasoning
The Court considered the petitioner’s economic circumstances and the fact that she could not reasonably have known that a surgical needle had been left inside her abdomen until it was discovered in 2022.
p. 5It also relied on the Kilpauk hospital’s discharge summary, which recorded no intervening surgery, and the intra-operative findings of 6 January 2022, which recorded a 5 cm needle in the abdomen.
p. 5In the Court’s view, those records warranted investigation notwithstanding the delay; it therefore referred the complaint for consideration by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council rather than finally determining the doctor’s disciplinary liability
p. 5 · p. 605Holding
The Court directed the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, suo motu impleaded as the sixth respondent, to issue notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent, hear both parties, consider the records concerning the petitioner’s delivery at the Corporation hospital and the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital report, and pass necessary orders on the petitioner’s representation within two months of receiving the order.
p. 6The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
p. 6Original Court PDF
M.SANGEETHAvsTHE STATE REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
