Jharkhand High Court: Personal Medical Negligence Plea Not PIL, Flags 2010 Act Lapses

Jharkhand High Court news: Despite noting the laxity and gaps in the enforcement of the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a man’s plea, holding that personal grievance cannot be invoked as public interest litigation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice M S Sonak and Justice Deepak Roshan was hearing a man’s plea, who had filed this petition purported in “public interest”, after failing to obtain relief by challenging various authorities of alleged medical negligence that led to his father’s death.

 These reliefs are entirely personal to the petitioner and, therefore, cannot be dealt with, the court said.

The court, noting that the reliefs in the present petition were “entirely personal to the petitioner”, refused to consider grants that do not appropriately concern or fall under the ambit of the public’s interest, the order noted on March 16. 

Highlighting the discrepancies in the enforcement of the Act, the court directed that the “rules cannot avoid enforcement or practice only symbolic, paper-based implementation, ” and called for effective implementation.

Personal reliefs

• The plea cannot be said to have prayed for appropriate reliefs in a Public Interest Litigation.
• These reliefs are entirely personal to the petitioner and, therefore, cannot be dealt with.
• The reliefs pleaded would involve an investigation into seriously disputed questions of fact. 
• Pursuant to the petitioner’s complaint about alleged medical negligence, a medical board was constituted by the Medical Superintendent, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, through an order dated September 1, 2018.
• The medical board, comprised of experts and heads of departments from the fields of Urology, Medicine, Neurosurgery, and Surgery, submitted a report on November 8, 2018, observing that the petitioner’s father was not in good condition at the time of admission.
• The denial of relief in terms of prayer will not, in any manner, preclude the petitioner from filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for pursuing his grievance.

Non-implementaion of Act

• As regards the non-implementation of the 2010 Act, the petitioner’s grievance was treated as one falling within the realm of “public interest.” 
• Several orders were passed by coordinate benches of this court requiring the state and other authorities to report on the status of compliance. Upon perusal of the same, the court is not entirely satisfied with the current status of compliance.
•  It is apparent that, while the statutory regime is in place, its implementation appears casual and ineffective. 
• A law is enacted because the legislature deems it necessary for the public good, and its continued infringement cannot be tolerated if the rule of law is to be upheld.
• Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 and Rules 2013 are a step towards securing this crucial right to the people; no stone must be left unturned to effectively implement this Act and the Rules made thereunder.
• From the affidavits filed on record, it is not clear whether the state council and the district registering authority are functional and discharging the functions they are duty-bound to perform under the 2010 Act and the 2013 Rules. 
• The legal regime is in place, but there is laxity in enforcement.
• The authorities tasked with implementing the provisions of the 2010 Act and the 2013 rules cannot avoid enforcement or practice only symbolic, paper-based implementation. 

Challenge to various authorities

• The petitioner, in person, had filed complaints with various authorities, including the police, alleging medical negligence on the part of several hospitals and doctors.
• He contended that the principal issues pertain to the non-implementation of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010.

Authority’s ‘negligence’

• The petitioner’s father was suffering from Parkinson’s disease and was undergoing treatment for the same in Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
• On October 5, 2017, the petitioner’s father suffered injuries following a fall at his residence in Ranchi. 
• He was initially taken to the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, where he received primary treatment by way of a Diazepam injection. 
• However, it is the petitioner’s case that the medical staff at RIMS, Ranchi, allegedly failed to provide adequate care, specifically neglecting to dress his wounds or provide necessary medical services. 
• Aggrieved by the perceived alleged negligence and dissatisfied with the services at RIMS, the petitioner shifted his father to Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, on the same day.
• On October 6, 2017, being dissatisfied with the treatment offered at Medanta, Ranchi, he requested the hospital to discharge his father to facilitate a transfer to another medical facility for treatment. 
• The petitioner’s father was discharged from Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, following the intervention of the head of the hospital, Dr Sharad Agarwal. 
• On October 9, 2017, when the patient ceased taking food, the petitioner consulted Dr SS Jena of Care Hospital, Bhubaneswar, under whose observation the petitioner’s father had been undergoing treatment. 
• Upon the consultation, the doctor advised the petitioner to once again admit his father to a hospital for further medical care.
• The petitioner, between October 10 and 15 of 2017, consulted several doctors and visited various medical facilities. 
• The petitioner’s father was readmitted to Medanta Hospital on October 10, 2017, where his medical treatment was administered, and he ultimately passed away on October 15. 
• The petitioner had filed complaints with various authorities, including the police, alleging medical negligence on the part of several hospitals and doctors. 
• The petitioner, claiming to have secured no relief from these agencies, had instituted the petition in the purported “public interest”.