HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN W. P.Nos.32765 & 32766 of 2014and W.M.P.No.11454 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.32765 of 2014 is partly allowed by directing the first respondent to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the petitioner at 6% interest per annum from the date of filing this petition till the date of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failure to pay the amount within three months would invite payment of interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment on the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- plus interest amount calculated at 6% per annum from the date of this petition till the date of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on
21.04.2022 Orders pronounced on
20.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
W. P.Nos.32765 & 32766 of 2014and
W.M.P.No.11454 of 2017
Muthulakshmi … Petitioner in both W.Ps’
Vs
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The District Collector, Tiruppur.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udumalpet,
Tiruppur District.
6.The Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District.
7.The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Dindigul District.
8.The Chief Medical Officer,
Coimbatore Medical College Hospital (Government), Coimbatore. … Respondents in both W.Ps’
(R – 8 is impleaded vide order dated 01.07.2015 in M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015)
Prayer in W.P.No.32765 of 2014: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay an exemplary compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner, her three children and the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law, who all have been deprived of their means to livelihood and the care and comfort of the petitioner’s husband N.Arumugam, son of Natarayan, who died on 13.11.2014 after having met with an accident on 31.10.2014 and having been admitted in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital by the sixth respondent and the same having been concealed to the petitioner and her family members till his death, which is an act of gross criminal negligence committed by the officers of the State more particularly the officers of the sixth respondent putting both the dead person as well as the petitioner’s family members to untold mental agony.
Prayer in W.P.No.32766 of 2014: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing further investigation by an independent agency regarding the suspicious death of the petitioner’s husband N.Arumugam alleged to have succumbed to an accident that happened on 31.10.2014 within the territorial limits of the sixth respondent and the same having been concealed from everyone without even registering of a First Information Report (FIR), till the death of the said N.Arumugam on 13.11.2014, including the seventh respondent, Inspector of Police, Keeranur, in Dindigul District who have already registered a FIR in Crime No.182 of 2014 on 05.11.2014 itself for man-missing and to take necessary action against the accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Purushothaman (In both W.Ps’)
For RR 1, 3, 5 & 8 : Mr.P.Kumaresan
(In both W.Ps’) Additional Advocate General
For RR 2, 4, 6 & 7 : Mr.Pratap
(In both W.Ps’) Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.32766 of 2014 is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing further investigation by an independent agency regarding the suspicious death of the petitioner’s husband N.Arumugam alleged to have succumbed to an accident that happened on 31.10.2014 within the territorial limits of the sixth respondent and
the same having been concealed from everyone without even
registering a First Information Report (FIR), till the death of the said
N.Arumugam on 13.11.2014, including the seventh respondent, Inspector of Police, Keeranur, in Dindigul District who have already registered a FIR in Crime No.182 of 2014 on 05.11.2014 itself for
man-missing and to take necessary action against the accused.
2. W.P.No.32765 of 2014 is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay an exemplary compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner, her three children and the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law, who all have been deprived of their means to livelihood and the care and comfort of the petitioner’s husband N.Arumugam, son of Natarayan, who died on 13.11.2014 after having met with an accident on 31.10.2014 and having been admitted in the Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital by the sixth respondent and the same having been concealed to the petitioner and her family members till his death, which is an act of gross criminal negligence committed by the officers of the State more particularly the officers of the sixth respondent putting both the dead person as well as the petitioner’s family members to untold mental agony.
3. It is an unfortunate case of N.Arumugam, who has a
wife and children, dying as an orphan. The deceased N.Arumugam and his wife, namely, the petitioner Muthulakshmi were living in Kokkarakalvalasu in Dindigul District. They have three children viz., Sumathi, aged 17 years, Jeeva, aged 15 years and Satheesh Kumar,
aged 12 years. Deceased N.Arumugam’s native Village is
J.Krishnapuram in Tiruppur District.
4. On 31.10.2014 at about 06.00 p.m., deceased N.Arumugam left to his native Village in J.Krishnapuram with a gunny bag full of Onion and Tomato for his parents in his motorbike TVSCentra bearing Registration No.TN-57-V-2953. Two days before, he had lost his mobile phone and he did not have any mobile phone with him. Usually, he would be with his parents for two or three days. Since he had not returned even after two days, the petitioner’s brother Maruthamuthu made a call to the relatives of the petitioner’s father-in-
law at about 06.30 a.m on 03.11.2014. He was informed that the petitioner’s husband did not visit her father-in-law’s house. On 04.11.2014, the petitioner along with her son Jeeva, relative
Murugesan, brother Maruthamuthu and her husband’s friend
R.Subramanian left for her father-in-law’s Village in search of her husband. They made enquiries on the way in Villages and main junction points. However, no information was forthcoming about her husband. R.Subramanian went to the sixth respondent Kudimangalam Police Station and met a woman, Police Constable Umavathy. She told him that she was not aware of the whereabouts of the petitioner’s husband and his vehicle and if she got any information, she would
inform him.
5. On 05.11.2014, a police complaint was given at the
seventh respondent Keeranur Police Station and the First Information Report was registered for man missing in F.I.R.No.182 of 2014. The petitioner was asked to come to the Police Station on 06.11.2014 and again on 07.11.2014. On 09.11.2014, Mr.Raja, Head Constable from the seventh respondent Keeranur Police Station came to the
petitioner’s Village. He made enquiries in the Village and took her brother Maruthamuthu in his motorcycle in search of the petitioner’s husband. They visited Kaniyur Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaniyur Police Station gave in writing that the Kaniyur Police station has no information about the petitioner’s husband. Then they visited sixth respondent Kudimangalam Police Station and met Special
Sub-Inspector of Police. He was served with a notice slip and also handbill containing the photo and missing information of N.Arumugam.
The said Sub-Inspector of Police had given in writing that the Kudimangalam Police Station has no information about the petitioner’s husband. A paper publication was given in Dinakaran Newspaper in Dindigul District and Daily Thanthi Newspaper in Tiruppur District on 11.11.2014 seeking information from the public about her husband.
6. On 13.11.2014, at about 10.30 a.m., R.Subramanian
received a phone call from M.Mahendran, Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station. M.Mahendran enquired about the
petitioner’s husband’s vehicle number. Then, he asked Subramanian to bring the petitioner to the Police Station. On visiting the Police Station,
they showed her husband’s vehicle. The Inspector of Police Mr.M.Mahendran asked the petitioner, her brother and others to go to Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital with Police Constable and to get her husband’s body from the mortuary. Subsequently, F.I.R was registered on the basis of the complaint given by Senthil Kumar. The District Collector ordered an enquiry by the fifth respondentRevenue Divisional Officer. The F.I.R in Crime No.298 of 2014 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the cycle stand owner Senthilkumar. The RDO enquiry done by the fifth respondent is only an eyewash. No proper treatment was given to her husband while he was in Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. Had the sixth respondent properly investigated the case and promptly intimated the petitioner when an enquiry was made on 04.11.2014 and on 09.11.2014 when the petitioner’s brother and Head Constable Raja of the seventh respondent Police Station visited the sixth respondent Police Station and gave an intimation about petitioner’s husband, the petitioner would have been in a position to give a better treatment to her husband and save his life or at least she would have had the satisfaction of attending to her husband and her husband would have had the satisfaction of interacting with his wife and
children before he breathed last.
7. The treatment record of the deceased N.Arumugam
shows that the petitioner’s husband was given mechanical treatment contrary to changing the course of treatment depending on the status of his health. The treatment record shows that her husband was conscious during most part of his treatment period at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. He was also oriented for some time. However, the Hospital authorities had not taken any steps to trace the identity of the petitioner’s husband, his relatives and communicate to his relatives about his admission in Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. The petitioner’s husband was made to die as an orphan by the Authorities. Serious doubts arose with regard to registration of the F.I.R, which was registered only on 13.11.2014 when the defacto complainant alleges that he knew about the accident on 31.10.2014 itself, and her husband was shown as an accused. After his death, a final report was filed closing the
investigation as ‘charge abated’. It is possible that her husband might have been hit by a heavy vehicle probably driven by a powerful V.I.P. The petitioner apprehends that her husband is deliberately shown as an accused to suppress the true manner in which he suffered injuries. The injured in the accident, Aaran was not examined by RDO. Her husband suffered a fracture in ribs that was not reflected in the treatment record. Therefore, these Writ Petitions have been filed for
the aforesaid relief.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner’s husband left to his parents home on 31.10.2014 and finding that he had not returned till 03.11.2014, they made enquiry with the sixth respondent Police on 04.11.2014 about her husband. On 05.11.2014, F.I.R was registered for ‘man missing’ by the seventh respondent Police Station. On 09.11.2014, Head Constable Raja from the seventh respondent Police Station visited sixth respondent Police Station and served the notice slip and handbill intimating the missing of her husband to the sixth respondent Police Station. The sixth respondent Police had given in writing that it had no information about her husband. In fact, the fact of the accident was intimated by Udumalpet Police Station to the sixth respondent Police Station even on the date of the accident. Had the sixth respondent Police Personnel verified the records, it would have come to light that the petitioner’s husband met with a road accident on 31.10.2014. The fact that the F.I.R in Crime No.298 of 2014 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by Senthilkumar shows that he was made to give a complaint with false details. The F.I.R shows that he knew about the accident on 31.10.2014 itself through his mother Eswari. Then he
visited the accident spot, removed the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-V-2953 from the accident spot and kept it in his two-wheeler stand. In that case, he was expected to give a complaint even on 31.10.2014, but the complaint was given only on 13.11.2014. In his statement recorded on 19.11.2014, he stated that he informed the police about what he knew about the accident. He was asked to sign by the Police and he did not know what was written in the
complaint.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that this statement is enough to conclude that Senthilkumar was made to sign in the complaint, the contents of which was filled by the Police. The enquiry conducted by the fifth respondent and the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet Police Station would establish the neglect and dereliction of duty on the part of the Police Personnel in the sixth respondent Kudimangalam Police Station. When the petitioner approached the sixth respondent Police Station on 04.11.2014 and again on 09.11.2014 and enquiring about her missing husband, the sixth respondent Police Personnel had not made proper enquiry/verification in the records and that was noted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his report. Throughout the treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, the petitioner’s husband was mostly conscious and sometime oriented. No effort was made to enquire about him and find out his name and
address, details about his relatives and to inform his relatives about his admission in hospital.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submitted that ‘Glasgow Coma Scale’ is a measurement of patients level of consciousness. The reading of ‘Glasgow Coma Scale’ of the petitioner’s husband shows that he was mostly having scores of level 11 to 15, 15 being the highest scale. The Doctors and other staff members are responsible for treating the petitioner’s husband. Had her husband been performed surgical treatment for subdural hemorrhage, there is a certain possibility that he would have survived. He was admitted as an unknown patient and died as an unknown patient. The Dean/Resident Medical Officer is responsible for the proper treatment
of an unknown patient. In the case beforehand, they have not performed their responsibility, provided proper treatment to her husband and saved his life. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays that considering the suspicious circumstances surrounding the registration of F.I.R and the closure of F.I.R, further investigation in this case is absolutely necessary. The petitioner’s
husband was not provided with best treatment in Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to provide better treatment in the Private Hospital. It was because the Hospital authorities failed to establish the identity of her
husband and inform her about his admission and treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. He suffered a painful and lonely death without the comfort of the company of his near and dear ones. Therefore, suitable compensation has to be awarded to the petitioner, who had suffered a lot due to the death of
her husband under the unusual circumstances.
11. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents 1, 3, 5 and 8 submitted that the petitioner’s husband was riding the two-wheeler under the influence of alcohol. He hit a pedestrian Aaran and both suffered injuries in the accident. The deceased N.Arumugam suffered head injuries. Due to the head injuries suffered and that he was under the influence of alcohol, he was not able to speak and inform about his name and address. Subsequently,
he was transferred from Udumalpet Government Hospital to Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. Best possible treatment was given in Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. Though it is noted that he was conscious, the reality is that he was not able to speak due to his head injury. Specialized Doctors examined him and gave him appropriate treatment by giving him necessary medications. Despite that, he died of head injuries and complications arose from the head injuries. He was mainly responsible for the accident by drunken driving and therefore he was shown as an accused. There is nothing to suspect the accident. As per the order of Additional Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Tiruppur, the investigation of the case was transferred to the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station from the Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.G1/140818/2014, dated 14.11.2014. After a free and fair investigation final report was filed as ‘charge abated’ for the reason that the accused in the accident case, N.Arumugam was dead. The contentions raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner is baseless and speculative akin to a wild goose chase.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 4, 6
and 7 submitted that there were no details available in the twowheeler like Insurance Certificate and Registration Certificate. The deceased had no driving license as well or any other document to
establish his identity. He was also under the influence of alcohol. There is no document produced to show that the deceased was the owner of the two-wheeler concerned in this case. Though the registration of the vehicle stands in the name of the deceased N.Arumugam, father’s name differs. Suitable departmental action was taken against erring officers for not properly investigating the case. The deceased N.Arumugam was responsible for the accident and therefore, F.I.R was registered against him and on his death, further investigation was closed as ‘charge abated’. Proper investigation was conducted in this case and proper treatment was given to the deceased N.Arumugam. These Writ Petitions are filed without any basis and therefore, liable to
be dismissed.
13. Considered the rival submissions and perused the
records.
14. The point which arises for consideration in W.P.No.32766 of 2014 is that whether further investigation by any competent agency regarding the suspicious death of the petitioner’s
husband deceased N.Arumugam is required?
15. The point which arises for consideration in
W.P.No.32765 of 2014 is that whether the petitioner is entitled for exemplary compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only)?
16. Unassailable facts in this case are that the petitioner’s
husband deceased N.Arumugam left his house on 31.10.2014 to visit his parents at J.Krishnapuram Village in Tiruppur District and he was found missing. Later, it was found that he took treatment for the head injuries suffered and succumbed to injuries on 13.11.2014. Only after his death, his identity was established and the petitioner was informed
about the death of her husband.
17. The allegations made against the police authorities,
especially the sixth respondent, is that the sixth respondent and other police officials working in Kudimangalam Police Station have not properly, diligently and consciously enquired the matter, despite petitioner’s relative approached Kudimangalam Police Station on 04.11.2014 and 09.11.2014 enquiring about the whereabouts of the petitioner’s husband deceased N.Arumugam. The allegation against the eighth respondent, Chief Medical Officer of Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital and the Doctors, staff working there is that they have not tried to know the identity of the petitioner’s husband deceased N.Arumugam and inform the petitioner or her relatives about his admission and treatment. The other allegation is that her husband
was not given proper treatment.
18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the report
submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, dated 20.11.2014 and the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 03.12.2014. Both the reports are the results of enquiries conducted with regard to the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased N.Arumugam. It is not in dispute that on 04.11.2014, one Subramanian friend of the deceased N.Arumugam visited Kudimangalam Police Station, met Umavathy, woman constable and enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased N.Arumugam. It is also not in dispute that on 09.11.2014, Mr.Raja, Head Constable of Keeranur Police Station and the petitioner’s brother Maruthamuthu visited Kudimangalam Police Station and enquired about the deceased
N.Arumugam and served the notice relating to missing of the deceased
N.Arumugam to the sixth respondent Police Station. One Special Sub-Inspector of Police with whom they enquired had given in writing that no information was available with regard to the petitioner’s husband. The statement of Umavathy recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 24.11.2014 shows that on 04.11.2014 when she came out of the Police Station, one Selvaraj was standing outside the Police Station. She asked him why he was standing. Selvaraj answered that his relative was missing and whether she had any information? She replied to him that she did not have any information and asked him to go to the Police Station and enquire about the matter. She also got his cell phone number and told him that she would inform as and when she got any information. This statement of Umavathy makes it clear that the petitioner’s relative Selvaraj enquired about the deceased N.Arumugam with Umavathy, who was working at the sixth
respondent Police Station.
19. The statement of M.Raja, Head Constable working in
the seventh respondent Police Station shows that a case in Crime No.182 of 2014 under Section ‘man missing’ was registered at Keeranur Police Station on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner. On 09.11.2014, he along with Maruthamuthu visited Kaniyur Police Station and then Kudimangalam Police Station enquiring about the deceased N.Arumugam. He had shown the missing notice with photo of the deceased N.Arumugam to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station and enquired about him. He was informed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station that he did not know anything about the deceased N.Arumugam and there is no case registered against the deceased N.Arumugam in Kudimangalam Police Station. In acknowledgment of his visit and enquiry about the deceased N.Arumugam, M.Raja got his signature in the passport. Thus, this statement of M.Raja, Head Constable makes it clear that he along with the petitioner’s brother Maruthamuthu visited sixth respondent Kudimangalam Police Station and enquired about the
deceased N.Arumugam.
20. What happened from 31.10.2014 till 04.11.2014, on 09.11.2014 and then on 13.11.2014 shows the sorry state of affairs of the Police Department in the matter of handling the investigation relating to the criminal cases, especially the case concerned in this case, where the deceased N.Arumugam was referred as an unknown person. It is not as though the incident relating to the deceased N.Arumugam suffering head injuries had not come to the notice of the Police immediately.
21. K.Vijayalakshmi, Grade I Police Constable of Udumalpet
Police Station was on duty at Udumalpet Police Station on 31.10.2014.
She received an intimation regarding the road accident at Periyapatti Main Road within the jurisdiction of Kudimangalam Police Station and one Aaran, son of Ovan and another unknown person aged 60 years
suffering injuries in the accident. She entered in the medical intimation
register and then informed the woman police Constable Kavitha of Kudimangalam Police Station about this accident at 23.50 hours.
K.Vijayalakshmi received the intimation regarding the accident at 23.40 hours and immediately thereafter she intimated the woman police Constable Kavitha of Kudimangalam Police Station about this
accident.
22. T.Kavitha, Woman Police Constable, Kudimangalam
Police Station, on receiving the intimation from Vijayalakshmi, Police Constable on 31.10.2014, entered the intimation in the relevant
register. As per the information, Aran and an unidentified male person, who suffered injuries in an accident, were admitted in Udumalpet
Government Hospital, therefore, she informed Selvan, Special SubInspector of Police, who was on night duty, about the receipt of the intimation at 12.00 midnight. Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police informed her that he was going to Periyapatti and take care of the case. On 01.11.2014, when Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, came to Police Station for handing over the walkie-talkie, she had again informed him about the aforesaid intimation. However, he did not say anything and left the place. She had also intimated Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, who came for morning duty. Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police told her that he
would take care of that case.
23. The statement of K.Vijayalakshmi, Grade I Police
Constable, Udumalpet Police Station and the statement of T.Kavitha, Woman Constable of Kudimangalam Police Station make it clear that the accident involving the deceased N.Arumugam and one Aaran was informed to Kudimangalam Police Station and T.Kavitha, Police Constable had entered intimation in the concerned Register and informed Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police immediately on 31.10.2014 and again on 01.11.2014. She had also intimated Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police about the accident on
01.11.2014.
24. The statement of T.Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of
Police shows that he visited Periyapatti bus stand and found that a blue colour two wheeler was lying on the ground near the bus stop. He enquired the nearby tea shop owner. He told him that a person in an inebriated condition fell down and also informed that the injured were sent to Hospital. He directed the tea shop owner to keep the two wheeler in the nearby two wheeler stand. His statement establishes the fact that he knew about the accident that happened on 31.10.2014
immediately and that the injured was sent to hospital.
25. The statement of Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, shows that he was informed by T.Kavitha, woman Police Constable on 01.11.2014 morning about the accident that had happened on 31.10.2014 night. She also informed Sevlan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police about the accident. Selvan was in-charge of the night duty on the previous day and therefore, he admitted the injured in the hospital and then kept the two wheeler in a two wheeler stand. Mathivanan thought that Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police would take care of the case. This statement also establishes the fact that he knew of the accident involving the deceased N.Arumugam and Aaran on 01.11.2014 and that they were admitted in the Hospital. However, both Sevlan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police and Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police have not taken up any further investigation in this case. Both of them shirked their duty and
responsibility.
26. The report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police
shows that Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police instructed one Senthil Kumar, YB, to visit Udumalpet Government Hospital and record the statement of injured and directed to get the Accident Register copy. Accordingly, Senthil Kumar visited Udumalpet Government Hospital and recorded the statement of Aaran and handed over the statement of Aaran and Accident Register copy to him. Instead of personally visiting Udumalpet Government Hospital, Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, had directed a non-police person, namely Senthil Kumar, to visit Government Hospital, Udumalpet and record the statement of the injured. It shows total indifferent attitude
and abdication of his responsibility of the job of policing.
27. It is further seen from the report that T.Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police said to have informed T.Kavitha, woman Police Constable that the injured was sent to Hospital, name and address of unknown person is not known and that two wheeler was kept in a two wheeler stand and he asked her to intimate this information to the
officer responsible for the maintenance of General Diary
S.Thirumalairajan, Sub-Inspector of Police and proceeded to take rest. Then at about 11.00 a.m on 01.11.2014, T.Selvan took General Diary charge from Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, received the
statement obtained from Aaran and Accident Register copy and
entered in General Diary. This report and statement of Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police shows that the statement of Aaran and details of Accident Register copy of the injured were entered in General Diary on 01.11.2014. It is also seen from the report that S.Thirumalairajan, Sub-Inspector of Police that he proceeded to High Court of Madras to attend a case on 01.11.2014 and returned on 02.11.2014. He was not informed by anyone about the accident, dated 31.10.2014 till the receipt of intimation of the death of the deceased N.Arumugan on 13.11.2014.
28. It is found by Deputy Superintendent of Police that Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police has not taken any steps to investigate about the deceased N.Arumugam as to his identity and other aspects after the deceased N.Arumugam was sent to Coimbatore
Government Medical College Hospital for treatment. Nagarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, who was on duty on 09.11.2014, when enquired by one Raja, Head Constable about the deceased N.Arumugam after showing his photo and handbill, Nagarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, without verifying the police station records informed M.Raja, Head Constable that there is no case registered concerning deceased N.Arumugam in Kudimangalam Police Station. Had he verified the register maintained at Kudimangalam Police Station, this accident would have come to the notice.
29. Finally the Deputy Superintendent of Police concluded
that:-
(i) Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police has not taken any steps to record the statement of injured after being informed about the accident by T.Kavitha, woman constable on 01.11.2014. On the other hand, he deputed Senthil Kumar, YB for recording the
statement.
(ii) Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, despite receiving intimation about the accident from the Hospital on the date of accident, failed to register the F.I.R immediately and start the investigation. Though he knew that the injured was sent to Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, he had not taken any further
steps for investigation about the injured and failed to register the F.I.R.
(iii) Nagarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police without verifying the Police Station records informed one M.Raja, Head Constable of Kudimangalam Police Station that there is no case registered
concerning deceased N.Arumugam.
(iv) Thirumalairajan, Sub-Inspector of Police after returning from other duty on 02.11.2014 failed to keep track of the intimations,
incidents that had taken place during his absence.
(v) M.Mahendran, the Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station, after returning from leave on 02.11.2014 failed to verify the police station records and find out the actions taken / to be taken.
Thus, these five police officers have neglected to perform their duties as expected of them. The report of Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 03.12.2014 is in conformity with the findings recorded by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet. The Revenue Divisional Officer recommended to initiate departmental action against Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police and Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police.
30. It clearly established from the statements of Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police and Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police and the reports of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet and Revenue Divisional Officer that Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police and Mathivanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police were primarily responsible for not registering the case immediately on receiving the intimation regarding the accident and investigate the case. Nagarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police was primarily responsible for giving false information that there was no case pending concerning deceased N.Arumugam, without properly verifying the records. Thirumalairajan, Sub-Inspector of Police and Mahendran, Sub-Inspector of Police were also responsible for
negligence in their duty that they failed to keep track of the incidents, events that had happened during their absence, from the registers
maintained in the Police Station.
31. Had Umavathi, woman Police Constable was vigilant
and dutiful and taken efforts to verify the Police Station records even on 04.11.2014, the petitioner’s relative would have known about the accident involving the deceased N.Arumugam and his admission at Government Hospital, Udumalpet and then at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. Similarly when Grade I Police Constable of
Kudimangalam Police Station along with petitioner’s brother Maruthamuthu approached Nagarajan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
with his photo and pamphlet regarding missing of deceased N.Arumugam, verified the police station records he would have known about the accident involving Aaran and unknown person (deceased Arumugam) and intimated about the accident and treatment of unknown person at Government Hospital, Udumalpet and then at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. Therefore, it is plain and clear that the police officials starting from Constable to Inspector working in Kudimangalam Police Station have not exercised their duty with the care, diligence and dedication expected of a person working in the Police Department. The result of their negligent and indifferent attitude is that the deceased N.Arumugam died as an unknown person. He lost the opportunity of better treatment at a private Hospital and the company of his near and dear ones. His near and dear ones had also lost the opportunity of providing him better treatment and being with him during his last days. Therefore, there is no hesitation for this Court to hold that there is a total lack of proper policing by the Police Officials working in Kudimangalam Police Station.
32. The next aspect of the matter is that the doubt raised
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to the reasons for sustaining injuries by the deceased N.Arumugam. There is a serious doubt as to the claim by the prosecution that the deceased N.Arumugam had really met with an accident. It is his case that the deceased N.Arumugam had not met with an accident or he was no way responsible for the accident. He has suspected that the deceased might have been murdered or some other VIP’s vehicle might have caused the accident. To save VIP the deceased was shown as an accused and conveniently the police closed the First Information Report as ‘charge abated’.
33. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner raised these suspicions, he has not produced any materials in support of his suspicion. Perusal of the medical records, that is the Accident Register copy of Government Hospital, Udumalpet, shows that an unknown person, aged about 60 years, was brought to the Hospital at 08.01 p.m on 31.10.2014. He was brought by 108 Ambulance with
alleged history of road traffic accident at Periyapatti Bus Stop at about 07.30 p.m on 31.10.2014 while going in a two wheeler hit on a walker on the road. At the time of admission, it was noted that he smelled of
alcohol. On 31.10.2014, the following injuries were noted at
Udumalpet, Government Hospital:-
“Injury:- Pain response
1) Abrasion 3 X 2 cm on the forehead.
2) Abrasion 7 X 3 on right knee
3) Multiple small abrasion on right hand.
4) Hematoma 6 X 3 cm on right temporal region.
5) Laceration of 4 X 2 cm on left ear.
6) Laceration of 2 X 2 cm on right ear.
7) Fracture clavicle right DNS RL.
Head injury.”
This Accident Registry copy was received by Senthil Kumar, YB, 22.
34. The Accident Register of Aaran, son of Ovan indicates
that he suffered injury in a road traffic accident while walking. He was hit by a two wheeler at about 07.30 p.m at Periyapatti Bus Stop. The consistent case as seen from the Accident Register copies is that there
was a road accident involving the deceased N.Arumugam, who was coming in a two wheeler and Aaran, who was walking on the road near Periyapatti Bus Stop.
35. As already indicated, no First Information Report was
registered in connection with this accident immediately on receipt of the information. First Information Report was registered only on 13.11.2014 after the death of the deceased N.Arumugam. That F.I.R was registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Senthil Kumar on 13.11.2014. His complaint shows that he has not actually seen the accident on 31.10.2014. His mother Eswari saw the accident and informed him about the accident. On visiting the accident site, he found a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-V-2953 was lying on the road. He took the two wheeler and placed it in his two wheeler stand. This statement is in direct contrast with the statement of Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police. Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police stated that he found the two wheeler lying in the road, enquired with the tea shop owner about the accident and directed the tea shop owner to keep the two wheeler in a nearby two wheeler stand. Senthil Kumar has given a totally contradictory statement. When Senthil Kumar knew about this accident on 31.10.2014 through hearsay from his mother Eswari and his mother knew about this accident on 31.10.2014, it is not known why the complaint was not given immediately on 31.10.2014 or atleast on the next day. The worst
is that Senthil Kumar, when he was enquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 19.11.2014, told him that he told the police about what he knew about the accident and he did not know what was written in the complaint, he signed in the compliant as requested by the police, meaning thereby that he did not know
anything about the contents of the complaint.
36. The other aspect is that the other person injured in the
accident Aaran, it is claimed by Senthil Kumar, YB, 22; Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police and Mathivanan, Sub-Inspector of Police that since Aaran did not want to prosecute the case, no First Information Report was registered. This claim of the aforesaid persons is hard to believe. It is seen from Aaran’s Accident Register copy that he suffered four abrasion injuries. Why at all he had to say that he did not want to
prosecute a criminal case. This doubt got strengthened from the statement of his son Thirumalaisamy. It is seen from the statement of Thirumalaisamy, son of Aaran, that his father was mentally ill and without knowing himself, he used to roam around. After knowing about the accident, he along with his brother Palani visited the Hospital. His father was not in a position to speak. He blabbered that a vehicle had hit him with unintelligible words. Then from the enquiry with other persons, they presumed that his father was hit by a two wheeler. When it is revealed from the statement of Thirumalaisamy, son of Aaran, that his father was mentally disordered person, that he suffered injury and he was not able to speak legibly, the claim made by Senthil Kumar, YB 22, that Aaran gave a statement that he did not want to prosecute the criminal case, cannot at all be believed. Assuming that such a statement was given by Aaran, his statement shows that the accident
had happened in the evening and he had no clear eyesight.
37. The report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet shows that the pedestrian namely Aaran suddenly crossed the road without noticing the oncoming motorcycle, resulting in the accident. When there is a certain possibility that Aaran was responsible for the accident by sudden crossing and when the complainant Senthil Kumar almost disowns his complaint naturally there arises a suspicion as to whether the registration of First Information Report against the deceased N.Arumugam as a person responsible for the accident is correct. May be that the deceased N.Arumugam had consumed alcohol prior to accident and may be that the deceased N.Arumugam and Aaran suffered injuries in an accident as claimed by the prosecution. The doubt still lingers in the mind of this Court is as to whether the deceased N.Arumugam was responsible for the accident. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not produced any substantial material to doubt the involvement of other vehicles, especially the vehicle of VIP’s or other manner for suffering injuries by the deceased N.Arumugam. In all probability the deceased N.Arumugam and Aaran might have suffered injuries in the accident involving the two wheeler
bearing Registration No.TN-57-V-2953 when it hit against Aaran.
38. In the light of the material available and discussed
above, there is a possibility that Aaran had mostly contributed and was responsible for the accident. In the considered view of this Court, this aspect has to be further investigated. It is seen that F.I.R was registered against the deceased N.Arumugam and that final report was filed after the death of the deceased N.Arumugam as ‘charge abated’. This is obviously not correct. The Honourable Supreme Court in (2009) 7 SCC 685 [Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna and
another] observed that “the learned Magistrate or superior Courts can direct further investigation, if the investigation is found to be tainted and / or otherwise unfair or is otherwise necessary in the ends of
justice.”
39. The Honourable Supreme Court in (2013) 5 SCC 762 [Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others] observed
that “fair and proper investigation” has a twin purpose. Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law. Secondly the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to
bring out the truth of the case before the Court of competent
jurisdiction. It will be a travesty of justice, if the Court cannot be permitted to direct “further investigation” to clear its doubt and to
order the investigating agency to further substantiate its charge sheet.
40. Therefore, this Court directs the fourth respondent to
order further investigation on the manner in which the accident had happened and who was responsible for the accident and file a
supplementary final report before the concerned Court for the Court to pass orders on the basis of the supplementary final report. The investigation has to be conducted by an officer not less than the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.32766 of 2014 is allowed.
41. Coming to the treatment aspect, it is submitted by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the deceased N.Arumugam was not given proper treatment in the Hospital, apart from the fact that the Doctor, nurses and staff attending the deceased N.Arumugam had not taken any effort to trace his identity and inform his family members about his admission and treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. It is his submission that Doctors
employ ‘Glasgow Coma Scale’ to ascertain consciousness level measurement of patients. ‘Glasgow Coma Scale’ is a scoring scale of eye opening, motor and verbal responses that can be administered to individuals, to objectively measure the level of consciousness and severity of the head injury. According to him, the minimum GCS score is 3 and the maximum is 15. A GCS score of less than 8 is generally considered a serious medical emergency due to problems with the airway. GCS score can fluctuate minute-by-minute, especially in critically ill patients. Medical records produced by the eighth respondent recorded the ‘Glasgow Coma Scale’ of the deceased N.Arumugam from 01.11.2014 to 12.11.2014.
42. It is mentioned in the medical report that there is a “MidLine Shift” i.e., the shift of two spheres of the brain. When there is a “MidLine Shift”, a surgery called “Skull Bone Surgery” ought to be performed to remove the blood clot. However in the case of the deceased N.Arumugam, no surgical intervention was made. Neurosurgeon recommended to conduct an HIV test called ‘VCTC’ test on 01.11.2014. It indicates that there was a need to carry out surgery
to remove subdural hemorrhage from the brain. However it was
remarked that no surgery was required. In case of a person terminally ill, monitoring is required on an hourly basis. That sort of monitoring was not done in the case of the deceased N.Arumugam. The entries of medical records appear to have been written by the same person just repeating the earlier entry from 09.11.2014. The post mortem report
shows that intercostal muscle contusion noted over right side 5th to 7th intercostal space. Right side 5th rib found fractured in its lateral aspect with surrounding tissue contusion. Whenever there is a puncture of the rib, blood clot due to hemorrhage will be there initially in the cavity and air will go inside and after few days lymphatic pus will get accumulated inside the cavity. This complication affecting lungs is called “Pneumothorax” and it has to be treated with a treatment called “Thoracentesis”. The medical report did not show the fracture of the rib or any treatment for the fracture of ribs. If proper treatment was given
to the deceased N.Arumugam, he would have survived.
43. In response, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the eighth respondent submitted that the deceased N.Arumugam was given best possible treatment in the Hospital. When he was admitted to Udumalpet Hospital on 31.10.2014, he was
responding to painful stimuli and he also smelled of alcohol. In medical parlance it means that the patient was unconscious and not oriented. He was referred to Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital on 01.11.2014 for further investigations and management. There is a vast difference between “conscious” and “oriented”. “Conscious” is defined as the state of awareness and arousable with response to external stimuli. “Orientation” is defined as the state of awareness of oneself and one’s surroundings in terms of time, place and person. Petitioner’s claim that the deceased N.Arumugam was fully conscious is
not correct and false. When he was received at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital on 01.11.2014, he was drowsy, breath had the smell of alcohol and he was admitted to the Trauma ward. He was not in a state of disclosing his identity. The Trauma ward Duty Assistant Surgeon mentioned that the patient was under the
influence of alcohol, his identity could not be elicited. He was drowsy,
irritable with Glasgow Coma Scale E4V4M5. Neurosurgeon has
clinically examined the patient and found the patient was conscious, disoriented with right eye periorbital edema with GCS E4V4M5. CT Brain scan report, dated 01.11.2014 showed that left fronto temporo parietal acute subdural hemorrhage width 7 mm, intra ventricular hemorrhage in lateral third and fourth ventricle and acute subarchnoid
hemorrhage in left ITP sulci. Appropriate course of medical management was started. Glasgow Coma Scale is a subjective
assessment method. It has poor accuracy and validity and that alone cannot be considered for the conscious state of mind and orientation of
a person. Neurosurgeon has given the Glasgow Coma Scale as E4V4M5, which shows that the patient was in a confused state (V4) and that he was not in a state of mind to disclose his identity. Patient had a mild head injury category, subdural clot was small and mass
effect produced by it was insignificant.
44. He further submitted that the assessment by Neurosurgeon on 02.11.2014 showed that the patient was conscious with an irritable state and the Glasgow Coma Scale was E4V4M6 (14/15), which means that the patient was arousable and not in a state to understand and respond to commands. The recording by Neurosurgeon on 03.11.2014 shows that the patient was conscious, but disoriented with a GCS score of E4V4M6 (14/15). The recordings by Neurosurgeon on 04.11.2014 and 05.11.2014 show that the patient was in a conscious and disoriented state with Glasgow Coma Scale of 14/15. Patient was on Ryles tube feeding. In reality, the patient was in a disoriented and confused state. Followup CT taken on 04.11.2014 showed acute subdural hemorrhage noted in left fronto parietal temporal region, acute sub arachnoid hemorrhage note in left fronto parietal region, midline shift of 3 mm, interhemispheric bleed with bilateral lateral ventricular hemorrhages. Clinical examination showed that the patient was conscious, disoriented with GCS of 12/15. Since there was no indication requiring surgical treatment, the patient was treated medically. Evaluation of patient by Trauma Ward Assistant / Neurosurgeon on 07.11.2014, 08.11.2014 and 09.11.2014 shows that the status of the patient was conscious, disoriented with Glasgow Coma Scale of 12/15. Patient was shifted to Neurosurgery ward on 09.11.2014 and necessary treatment was continued.
45. Notes by Neurosurgeon on 10.11.2014, 11.11.2014
and 12.11.2014 show that the status of the patient was conscious, disoriented and he was able to localize pain, Glasgow Coma Scale stood at 12/15. Pupils 3 mm sluggishly reacting to light with normal vitals. At about 12.30 a.m., on 13.11.2014, patient’s condition deteriorated suddenly, patient became unconscious and he was
responding only to painful stimuli, pupils 3mm slowly reacting to light
and BP 80/60mmHg, Pulse rate 64/minute. The condition further deteriorated at 12.40 a.m., on 13.11.2014 and pulse and blood pressure was not recordable. Treatment was continued with atropine,
ionotropic supports and CPR was started. At 01.10 a.m., on 13.11.2014, heart sounds and spontaneous respiration were absent, pulse and BP were still unrecordable. CPR was stopped. In Spite of all continuous resuscitative measures, the patient could not be revived and was declared dead on 13.11.2014 at 01.10 a.m. It was due to
head injury and its complications.
46. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
eighth respondent further submitted that the deceased N.Arumugam was largely unconscious and he was not able to communicate from the date of his admission at Udumalpet and Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital till the date of his death. However, he was given the best possible treatment and care. There was no indication requiring surgical management and therefore, it was not resorted to. VCTC test is a routine investigation done for Trauma patients. The Doctor of the Neurosurgery Department will be posted as Ward Incharge for a month on rotation basis, and therefore, entries have
been made by the same Doctor in the same handwriting from 09.11.2014 to 13.11.2014. The rib fracture noted in the Postmortem examination could have been possible due to resuscitation done for reviving the patient. The reason for the deceased N.Arumugam, in not disclosing his identity, was due to his disorientation, confusion and drowsiness related to his head injury. The petitioner is attempting a fishing and rowing inquiry in this case against the eighth respondent. Thus, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1, 3, 5 and 8 submitted that the deceased N.Arumugam
was given a correct and good treatment.
47. The eighth respondent produced the medical records
containing particulars of treatment given to the deceased N.Arumugam
from the date of his admission on 01.11.2014 at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital till the date of his death. We have already seen that immediately after the accident, the deceased N.Arumugam was admitted at Government Hospital, Udumalpet. He
had the following injuries:-
“Injury:- Pain response
1) Abrasion 3 X 2 cm on the forehead.
2) Abrasion 7 X 3 on right knee
3) Multiple small abrasion on right hand.
4) Hematoma 6 X 3 cm on right temporal region.
5) Laceration of 4 X 2 cm on left ear.
6) Laceration of 2 X 2 cm on right ear.
7) Fracture clavicle right DNS RL.Head injury.”
48. The deceased N.Arumugam was admitted at
Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital at about 01.06 a.m. on 01.11.2014. As pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the eighth respondent that at the time of admission, the deceased N.Arumugam was under the influence of alcohol and therefore no history could be elicited from him. He was found drowsy and irritable. The following external injuries are noted at
01.45 a.m:-
• “Laceration over right ear lobe 3 X 0.5 X 0.5 cm (sutured).
• Multiple abrasion involving right side of face largest 10 X 5 near outer canthus of eye.
• Multiple abrasions over right knee largest 2 X 2 cm.
• contusion of right eye.
• Laceration over right clavicle 1 X 1 X 1 cm (sutured).
• GCS E4V5M6.”
49. The Doctor who examined the deceased N.Arumugam
at 01.50 a.m on 01.11.2014 recorded that Neurological examination could not be done as the patient was drowsy. Strapping was done for right clavicle fracture. Glasgow Coma Scale was recorded as E4V4M5. He was found in a drowsy and irritable, conscious and irritable condition and then in conscious and disoriented condition on 01.11.2014 and Glasgow Coma Scale was recorded at E4V4M5, E4V4M6. On 02.11.2014 he was in a conscious and irritable condition. Glasgow Coma Scale stood at E4V4M6 (15/15). On 03.11.2014, he was found conscious and oriented with GCS 15/15. Nuerosurgeon found him conscious and disoriented. On 04.11.2014, he was
conscious, but found in an irritable condition and GCS score stood at 15/15. On the same day, his condition was noted as conscious and disoriented by Neurosurgeon. The recording on 05.11.2014 shows that he was conscious, but irritable and GCS score stood at 15/15. Neurosurgeon noted that he was conscious, but disoriented and recorded a GCS score at E3V3M5. On 06.11.2014, he was found in conscious, but disoriented condition and GCS score stood at 15/15. Neurosurgeon recorded the report of CT brain and that patient was conscious and disoriented with GCS of E4V3M5.
50. CT brain report, dated 01.11.2014 recorded the
following findings:-
• “Left fronto tempora parietal acute subdural hemorrhage (width 7 mm).
• Intraventricular hemorrhage in lateral III & IV ventricle.
• Acute subarchnoid hemorrhage in left
ITP sulci.
• Midline shift to right sella (4.3 mm).
• Fracture right zygoma, right tempora parietal bone.
• Coronal sutural diastases.
• Right side scalp and facial hematoma ”
51. CT brain report, dated 04.11.2014, recorded the
following findings:-
• “Left Nasal bone fracture.
• Right zygoma and right temporal bone fracture.
• Acute subdural hemorrhage noted in left fronto
parietal temporal region maximum thickness – 8 mm.
• Acute subarchnoid hemorrhage noted in left fronto parietal region and posterior inter hemisphere.
• Hemorrhagic contusion in left posterior temporal region.
• Midline shift to right 3 mm.
• Bilateral tentorial bleed.
• Bilateral lateral ventricular hemorrhage.
• Bilateral infarct and glyosis noted in right parito occipital region.
• Bilateral cerbral edemo (L 7 R).
• Normal intra domains.”
52. On 07.11.2014 the deceased N.Arumugam was
conscious and disoriented. GCS stood at E4V3M5. Neurosurgeon recorded that the patient was conscious and disoriented. On 08.11.2014 recording shows that he was conscious but disoriented. GCS stood at E4V3M5. On 09.11.2014 recording shows that he was conscious, but disoriented and GCS stood at E4V3M5. He was ordered to be transferred to Neurosurgery ward on 09.11.2014. The recordings on 10.11.2014 to 12.11.2014 are same with a recording that the patient was conscious and disoriented and GCS score was at E4V3M5. It was found that on 12.11.2014 the patient was in a drowsy and arousable condition and responded to painful stimuli. Then from 12.30 a.m on 13.11.2014, his condition started deteriorating. He responded to painful stimuli and became unconscious. Then there was a minimal response to painful stimuli. No response to any stimuli at 12.50 a.m and no response to painful stimuli at 01.00 a.m. CPR was stopped and
his death was recorded at 01.10 a.m on 13.11.2014.
53. The status of the deceased N.Arumugam from the date
of the accident till the date of his death as seen from the medical
records is given in the following tabular column:-
Sl.N o. Date Time Status Glasgow Coma
Scale
1. 31.10.2014 08.01
p.m Pain responsive ….
2. 01.11.2014 01.50
a.m Drowsy, irritable E4V4M5
3. 01.11.2014 …. Disoriented, irritable ……
4. 01.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V4M5
5. 01.11.2014 …. Conscious, irritable E4V4M6

6. 02.11.2014 …. Conscious, irritable 15/15
7. 02.11.2014 …. Conscious, irritable E4V4M6
8. 03.11.2014 …. Conscious, oriented 15/15
9. 03.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V4M6
10. 04.11.2014 …. Conscious, irritable 15/15
11. 04.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
13. 05.11.2014 …. Conscious, irritable 15/15
14. 05.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E3V3M5
15. 06.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented 15/15
16. 06.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
17. 07.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
18. 07.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
19. 07.11.2014 …. Disoriented …..
20. 08.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented …..
21. 08.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
22. 09.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
23. 09.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
24. 09.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
25. 10.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
26. 11.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
27. 12.11.2014 …. Conscious, disoriented E4V3M5
28. 12.11.2014 11.30
p.m Drowsy,
arousable,
responds to
painful stimuli ….
29. 13.11.2014 12.30
a.m Unconscious,
responds to
painful stimuli ….
30. 13.11.2014 12.40
a.m Unconscious, minimal
response to
painful stimuli …..
31. 13.11.2014 12.50
a.m Unconscious, no response to any
stimuli ….
32. 13.11.2014 01.00
a.m Unconscious, no response to
painful stimuli ….
33. 13.11.2014 01.10
a.m CPR stopped …..
It is seen from this tabular column that the deceased N.Arumugam was mostly conscious from 01.11.2014 till 12.11.2014. He was also found irritable, disoriented on many days during the course of his treatment. He was found conscious and oriented on 03.11.2014. His Glasgow Coma Scale ranges from 12 to 15. Only on 05.11.2014 and
07.11.2014 GCS were recorded at 11.
54. As stated above, Glasgow Coma Scale is a scoring scale
of eye opening and motor and verbal responses that can be administered to individuals to objectively measure the level of
consciousness and severity of the head injury. It is a neurological scale aiming to provide a reliable, objective way of recording the conscious state of a person, both for initial and continuing assessment of the patient, which has a special value in predicting the ultimate outcome. Generally, comas are classified as severe, with GCS < 8, moderate, GCS 9-12 and minor, GCS > 13. We have seen that the GCS scale of the deceased N.Arumugam during the days of his treatment ranges
between 11 and 15. We have also seen that the deceased N.Arumugam was conscious during most part of his treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital.
55. Collins Dictionary of Medicine gives the meaning of ‘Conscious’ as “awareness of one’s existence sensations and
environment; capable of thought and perception”.
56. Orientation refers to a person’s level of awareness of
self, place, time and situation. The types of orientation are orientation to person, orientation to place, orientation to time and orientation to situation. Typical questions include:- (1) What is your name? (2) Where are you? (3) What is the date? (4) What time is it? And (5) What just happened to you?
57. We have seen that the deceased N.Arumugam was
mostly conscious and his Glasgow Coma Scale ranges from 11 to 15. A genuine doubt arises as to why the Doctors, nurses and staff, who attended him during the course of treatment, have not taken any steps to find out his name and record his name in the medical records, find out his address, details about his family members and inform the family members. Though the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the eighth respondent submitted that though it was recorded in the medical records that the deceased N.Arumugam was conscious, the truth is that he was not conscious enough to identify himself due to the head injuries suffered. Though his Glasgow Coma Scale shows that, it ranges from 11 to 15 from 01.11.2014 to 12.11.2014, in reality he was not able to communicate. This
submission of the learned Additional Advocate General for the eighth respondent is contrary to the clinical findings recorded in the medical
records. When it was recorded that the deceased N.Arumugam was conscious during most part of his treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital and Glasgow Coma Scale stood at 11 to 15, the possible inference that can be drawn is that he was conscious enough to the surroundings, capable of thought and
reception and possibly in a position to communicate. There is no entry
after 02.11.2014 that the deceased N.Arumugam was not able to speak or communicate. On 03.11.2014, he was conscious and oriented, meaning thereby he was able to say his name and other details. It is unfathomable, rather incomprehensible to understand as to why no sincere efforts were taken by the Hospital authorities to
trace his identity.
58. The medical records especially CT scan report show
that the deceased N.Arumugam suffered fracture in nasal bone, right zygoma and right temporal bone fracture. Acute Subdural hemorrhage was noted in the left frontoparietal temporal region with a thickness of 8 mm. Acute subarachnoid hemorrhage was noted in the left fronto
parietal region and posts inter hemisphere. Midline shift to right 3 mm.
59. In Dr.K.S.Narayan Reddy’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, subdural hemorrhage and acute subdural hemorrhage are discussed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

“Subdural haemorrhage may occur from relatively slight trauma, often insufficient to cause unconsciousness and usually not producing fractures of the skull, and may be associated with contrecoup contusions. About 70% occur due to falls and assaults and 25% due to vehicle accidents, and are especially likely to be found in alcoholics, old persons owing to atrophy or shrinkage of the brain and in children. It may occur in the absence of fracture of the skull or cerebral contusions or other visible
brain injury. It occurs after the head impacts a hard surface and the brain is accelerated, which causes tearing
of the parasagittal bridging veins.
Death may occur, if the haemorrhage is about
100 to 150 ml. Rapid development of a subdural
haematoma will cause compression of the brain stem and secondary brain haemorrhage.The cerebral convolutions retain their normal contours, because the blood presses both the crests and depths of the gyri. The haematoma causes displacement of the cerebral hemispheres with flattening of the convolutions of the opposite hemisphere as they are pressed against the dura and bone. It is commonly seen over the upper lateral surface of the cerebral hemispheres but it may occur anywhere and may
cover the entire side of the brain or even be bilateral. It is most commonly supratentorial. It usually appears as thick layers of blood over the superior surface of the brain, which drain down under gravity and cover the whole hemisphere, with a large accumulation in the middle and anterior fossae. The haemorrhage may remain fluid or may clot into a firm mass. It is essentially venous or capillary and not arterial. The volume of the blood varies from a few drops or a thin -layered effusion to 150ml. or more. Fatal
subdural haemorrhages are usually associated with
contusions or lacerations of the brain and fractures of the skull. Often they accumulate gradually. With slow bleeding, a considerably large subdural haematoma can be tolerated without symptoms or serious side-effects. Usually, the vessels torn are so small that no main bleeding point can be discovered, either at operation or post-mortem. Snall
amounts of subdural lhaemorrhage are usually
spontaneously absorbed.
It is divided into three types according to the time
of onset of symptoms after the injury. (1) In the acute type, haemorrhage occurs immediately and very rapidly after the trauma. (2) In the subacute type, the symptoms develop from several days to 2 to 3 weeks after injury, due to the pressure of the haematoma. The clot contains some dark fluid with formation of a thin peripheral membrane. (3) Chronic type results from slight trauma in which
symptoms appear some weeks or months later.
Acute Subdural Haemorrhage arises mostly from rupture of large bridging veins, rupture of one of the cortical arteries, or cerebral lacerations. Blood from the torn vessels spreads freely in the subdural space, though it is greater near the injured vessels. In severe head injuries, it may be bilateral. The blood is usually liquid or semiliquid. It may vary from a thin layer of one mm. to 2 to 3 cm.thickness, but in fatal cases a layer half to one cm. covers a large area of one or both hemispheres. The commonly affected areas are those in which cortical damage is commonest, i.e., that frontotemperoparietal regions. Fresh subdural haematoma (liquid blood) over the top of the brain can be easily washed off, in contrast to subarachnoid haemorrhage. Tears of sinuses produce clots in unusual positions, such as the posterior fossa over the occipital lobes or between the hemispheres over the corpus collosum. The sinuses are usually torn by penetrating
wounds or depressed fractures.

In the acute type, the clinical picture closely resembles extradural haemorrhage, but the symptoms are delayed for 24 hours to 48 hours, instead of 2 to 4 hours.
When there is a lucid interval, this may be longer than the
average 4 hours of extradural haemorrhage. Subdural haemorrhage is almost always of traumatic origin. In the early period after the formation of haematoma, cerebral compression is not produced, but secondary changes in the haematoma may increase the size considerably. Death is very common due to secondary pressure upon the brain stem. Subdural haematoma produces some degree of
cerebral shift and herniation, notably transtentorial.
If infarction is due to subdural haematoma, it will be underneath it and is of more recent origin than the oldest portion of the haematoma. If infarction is due to stroke, there will be proximal disease of the cerebral arteries, such as severe atheroma in cervical carotid arteries, coronary atheroma, scarring of the heart muscle or disease of the valve. The infarction does not necessarily underlie the haematoma and will be as old as the oldest portion of the haematoma.”
60. A Subdural hemorrhage (or Hematoma) is a type of
bleeding that often occurs outside the brain as a result of a severe head injury. It takes place when blood vessels burst between the brain and the leather-like membrane that wraps around the brain (dura
mater). The pooling blood creates pressure on the surface of the brain, causing a variety of problems. The treatment of subdural hemorrhage depends on the severity of the condition. For minor hemorrhage, observation and medication may be the treatment. Surgery may be required for more severe hemorrhage. Surgery is needed to drain the blood or repair the damaged blood vessels. We have noted that the deceased N.Arumugam had acute subdural hemorrhage in the left fronto parietal temporal region to a thickness of 8 mm and acute subarachnoid hemorrhage in left fronto parietal region. It was also
noted that there was a midline shift to right 3 mm.
61. Brain is naturally balanced between the left and right
hemisphere. There is a groove that runs between both sides of the brain that is midline to the body. The spinal cord emerges at the middle-base of the brain and continues down the center of the back. A midline shift occurs when something pushes this natural centerline of the brain to the right or to the left. It is a sign after head trauma. Head trauma can immediately and significantly increase intracranial
pressure. If there is a powerful blow to the head, blood vessels rupture and bleed into and around the brain. Since the heart continues to pump fresh blood into the brain, the extra blood that is leaking out of broken blood vessels begins to accumulate. This raises overall brain pressure and the growing collection of blood, called a hematoma, begins to push against brain tissue. This is considered as a medical emergency and is an ominous sign. The deceased N.Arumugam had acute subdural hemorrhage and acute subarachnoid hemorrhage with
midline shift as indicated above.
62. It is not known why the surgical treatment was not
opted. All along the deceased N.Arumugam was treated only on
medication, which showed no improvement in his condition. There is a merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that had the deceased been treated in a private Hospital or by surgery in Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, he would have survived. For unknown patients, the Dean / Resident Medical Officer of the Hospital are the persons responsible for ensuring
proper treatment. In the case beforehand, there is no material available to show that the Dean / Resident Medical Officer had shown any interest in deciding the line of treatment, altering the line of treatment and improving the line of treatment given to the deceased N.Arumugam.
63. From the materials produced in this case and
submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there was all around failure of the Police in registering and investigating the case, treating an “unknown” patient in the Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital and that resulted in the deceased N.Arumugam dying as an orphan. There is also a strong force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that had any of these authorities taken care to identify the petitioner’s husband deceased N.Arumugam and then the petitioner, she would have taken every efforts to save her husband by making available best possible treatment or at least she and her family
members would have had the satisfaction of remaining with her husband during his last days and her husband would have also had the satisfaction of the company of his wife and children during his last days. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is total, collective and all round failure of Police Department and Hospital authorities at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital that included Doctors, Nurses and staff members, who attended the deceased N.Arumugam, in their failure to identify the name and address of the deceased N.Arumugam and inform his wife or relatives about his admission and treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. This caused enormous mental agony to the petitioner and her family members. Thus this Court is of the view that the
petitioner’s claim for compensation is justifiable.
64. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on
the following Judgments in support of his claim for compensation:-
“(i) (1993) 2 SCC 746 (Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa and Others);
(ii) (1997) 1 SCC 416 (D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal);
(iii) 2013 SCC Online Mad 1894 (The Home Secretary, the State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs.
Ganesan and another); and
(iv) 2016 (4) M.P.L.J 198 (Lawyers for Justice (Non-Government Organization) Vs. State of M.P and others).”
65. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied
on the order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.9601 of 2016, dated 17.06.2016 (Sumathi Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary and others) for the proposition that right to competent medical treatment is a fundamental right and it is held as
follows:-
“8a. The contention that the competency of Government Doctors in terms of their qualification, experience and skill, cannot be underestimated is perfectly right, but when the petitioner asked for treatment in a private hospital, it may not reflect on the efficiency on Doctors, but on the overall conditions prevailing in the Government Hospitals. The competency and quality of the Doctors employed in Government Hospitals is not a mismatch to the Doctors employed in private hospitals, but having regard to the flooding patient’s population, seeking assistance of the Government Hospital, the inadequacy of equipment available coupled with shortage of manpower in the hospital are pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is stated that these factors normally make the people to think that they must be given treatment in a private hospital. Such apprehension cannot be said to be unreasonable.
……..
So far as the right to get competent medical treatment is concerned, it is a fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
66. In the Judgment relied on by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 (Nilabati
Behera Vs. State of Orissa and Others), it is held as follows:-
“33.The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much as protector and guarantor of the indefeasable rights of the citizens. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations.
34.The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings.
The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasable right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasable rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’ under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of the exemplary damages’ awarded against the wrong-doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.
35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course, has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law – through appropriate proceeding. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible.”
67. In the Judgment relied on by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 (D.K.Basu Vs. State of
West Bengal), it is held as follows:-
“54.Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer.”
68. In the Judgment relied on by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad 1894 (The Home Secretary, the State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs.
Ganesan and another), it is held as follows:-
“26. The State is liable to pay compensation to the Citizens and others, when they were affected by the wrongs committed by the public officials acting in breach of public duty, constitutional mandates, abridging or abrogating of Civil Liberties, Human Rights and makes the very existence of human being at peril. It is considered a “Strict Liability”, liability irrespective of blameworthiness, it is absolute.
……..
34. It is true that disputed questions cannot be adjudicated/examined in writ petitions. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because the claim has been contradicted a Constitutional Court cannot plead inability and drive the seeker of Justice to seek Justice elsewhere – file a regular Suit in a Civil Court. The facts in this case i.e., the death of the Writ Petitioners’ son, due to injuries sustained in the bomb explosion, his age, etc. are not in dispute.”
69. In the Judgment relied on by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner reported in 2016 (4) M.P.L.J 198 (Lawyers for Justice (Non-Government Organization) Vs. State of M.P and
others), it is held as follows:-
“21.Ubi jus ibi remedium – There is no wrong without a remedy. The law wills that in every case where man is wronged and undamaged he must have a remedy. A mere finding of negligence to protect the life during States custody does not by itself provide any meaningful remedy to family members of deceased Ram Dayal whose fundamental right to life has been infringed. Much more needs to be done.”
The State was directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the family members,
apart from issuing other directions.
70. In response, learned Additional Advocate General pressed into service the Judgment reported in 2021 (10) SCC 291 (DR Harish Kumar Khurana Vs. Joginder Singh and others) for the
proposition that finding of medical negligence of Doctors / Hospital must be based on proper medical evidence on crucial medical aspects.
The relevant portion is as follows:-
“11. In the background of the rival contentions, the fact that a second operation was performed on 16.12.1996 and the patient had suffered a cardiac arrest after she was administered anaesthesia appears to be the undisputed position from the medical records as well as the statement of the parties. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered as death due to medical negligence unless there is material on record to suggest to that effect. It is necessary that the hospital and the doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstance. However, in unfortunate cases though death may occur and if it is alleged to be due to medical negligence and a claim in that regard is made, it is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at a conclusion.
12. Insofar as the enunciation of the legal position on this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellant had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that the true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of, if acting with ordinary care. The accident during the course of medical or surgical treatment has a wider meaning. Ordinarily an accident means an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence, something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated.
13. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in Martin F.D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 wherein it is stated that simply because the patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straight away liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor. It is further observed therein that sometimes despite best efforts the treatment of a doctor fails and the same does not mean that the doctor or the surgeon must be held guilty of medical negligence unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that the doctor is negligent.”
71. He also relied on the Judgment in 2022 SCC Online Kar 131 ( Dr.Ganesh Nayak Vs. V.Shamanna and others) for the
proposition that nexus between the procedure and death of the patient
must be established for medical negligence. It is observed as follows:-
“3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and having perused the bulky Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the patient namely Smt.Yellamma was suffering from multiple ailments including diabetes, Neuropathy, Nephropathy, etc., and that she was being treated by several other doctors in different hospitals at different times, is substantiated from the perusal of material on record; however, the allegation is made only against the petitioner and no explanation is offered as to why others who had treated her before were not even issued a show cause notice asking for their views; this happens to be the first error apparent on the face of the record.
(b) The records reveal that the patient Smt.Yellamma was already aged 65 years and she was suffering from ailments natural to declining age of life; it is a common knowledge that the evening of life, some diseases come and stay with beings, be it humans or other, as inevitable guests; an aged person suffering from ailments of the kind, is visited by yet another disease more particularly affecting the functioning of heart, the degree of mortality increases; the records reveal that the patient had some significant problem with Cardio Vascular Vein since long and therefore, she had undergone angiogram at the hands of the petitioner; however, the medical records including the impugned order prima facie show that the cause of death is the serious bacterial infection later contracted; there is huge time gap between accomplishment of angioplasty by the petitioner and the demise of the patient; there is nothing on record to show that the alleged deficiency in professional service accelerated the process of health deterioration that eventually resulted into her death; some positive evidentiary material was necessary to eliminate the possible nova causa interveniens; therefore, there is no reasonable connect or nexus between the medical procedure done by the petitioner and death of the patient vide ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK VS. CHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD 2019 (7) SCC 401.
(c) It does not need research to show that more often than not, the cases of medical negligence are launched recklessly by the patients and their relatives; ‘compensation culture’ which obtains in other jurisdictions is gradually gaining entry to the field of medical services in our society affecting a healthy relationship of doctor & patient; it is tritely said “faith heals and not the medicine”; faith here means the one reposed in the treating doctor; courts have been nowadays observing that an unscrupulous section of the people are prone to use the slightest opportunity to sue the doctors and hospitals, in the hope of making fast buck; the motivation of people bringing actions for medical negligence are more complicated: some sue for money; others sue for getting an acceptance of guilt; some others do it to ensure that errors would not be repeated; but a large chunk of cases does not involve bonafide claims, cannot be much disputed; the ‘compensation culture’ be it truth or a myth in varying degrees, has given rise to risk aversion; medical professionals having a complaint made against them gather an impression that there is an unjustifiable attack on their professional integrity and reputation; this may lead to a defensive response of the medicos ultimately resulting into enormous cost escalation in medical services; if the public servants can be legally protected for the bonafide errors in their action, there is no reason to extend for not extending such a protection to the medical professionals.
(d) It is said the realm of medicine is an ever growing branch of uncertain knowledge; William Osler (1849-1919), a Canadian Physician, more than a century ago had said that “medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability”, a host of unassessable factors entering the fray of diagnosis & treatment; the advancement of science & technology has to some extent reduced the level of such uncertainty and enhanced the degree of probability, is also true; however, it cannot be disputed that the medical field is still in a fluid state; a great Indian sage Ramakrishna Paramahamsa had said: “God laughs on two occasions. He laughs when the physician says to the patient’s mother, ‘Don’t be afraid…; I shall certainly cure your boy.’ God again laughs, saying to Himself, ‘I am going to take his life, and this man says, he will save it!…” Even if it is shown that a drug or a procedure did cause an injury, it is difficult to ascertain whether this is because of the drug or the procedure; for example, it might be that the drug or the procedure is not defective if it provides a cure for the vast majority of people, although it has undesirable consequences for a small number of people; if a patient is of the unlucky few, there will be difficulty in concluding that the drug or the procedure was actionably defective; this is only to highlight the uncertain causation obtaining in the realm of medical liability; this aspect ought to have animated the decision making process that culminated into the impugned order of penalty; however, that having not happened, the impugned order suffers from another legal infirmity.
(e) Before parting with this case, it needs to beobserved that: medical and paramedical
professionals are inevitable for a healthy society; Vedic literature lauds medical practitioner and medicine as ‘vaidyo naaraayano harihi’, nearly meaning that a true doctor as a healer is God and that a true medicine is like the sacred water from the river Ganga; during COVID pandemic, how the doctors and paramedics served our society does not fade away from the public memory; society has to gratefully appreciate the valuable services rendered by the medicos; however, at times, being the victims, the medicos are made to apologize to the attackers and this led to the State enacting the Prevention of Violence Against Doctors, Medical Professionals and Medical Institutions Act, 2018; having said all this, this court hastens to add that the doctors’ is a profession wherein service ought to be the motto and not the profit; as any professionals, they too are not immuned from legal action for medical negligence, as observed by the Apex Court in INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION VS.
V.P.SHANTHA (2005) 6 SCC 1.”
72. From the Judgments relied on by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, the following propositions emerge:-
“(i) The Courts can mould the relief by granting “compensation” in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of
fundamental rights. It does so under the public way by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty
to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages’ awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(ii) It is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to a life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts.
(iii) A State is liable to pay compensation to the citizens
and others, when they were affected by the wrong
committed by the public officials acting in breach of public
duty.
(iv) A mere finding of negligence to protect the life during States custody does not by itself provide any meaningful remedy to family members of the deceased.”
73. Similarly from the Judgments relied on by learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1, 3, 5 and 8, the
following propositions emerge:-
“(i) Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered as death due to medical negligence, unless
there is material on record to suggest to that effect.
“(ii) “Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art
of probability”, a host of un-assessable factors entering
the fray of diagnosis and treatment. Unscrupulous sections of the people are prone to use the slightest opportunity to sue the Doctors and Hospitals, in the hope
of making a fast buck and for other reasons.
(iii) Doctors’ is a profession wherein service ought to be the motto and not the profit; as any professionals, they too are not immuned from legal action for medical
negligence.”
74. In the case beforehand, CT scan report on 01.11.2014
showed the fracture of left temporal parietal bone, acute subdural hemorrhage, acute subarchnoid hemorrhage in left ITP sulci and other injuries. The followup CT scan taken on 04.11.2014 showed acute subdural hemorrhage noted in left fronto temporal parietal region, acute sub arachnoid hemorrhage in left fronto parietal region, midline shift of 3 mm, interhemispheric bleed with bilateral lateral ventricular hemorrhages. These CT scan reports clearly show that the deceased
N.Arumugam’s condition was deteriorating day by day. However, he was continued with the same course of treatment with medicines. Option of surgical treatment was not explored. There is a possibility that surgical treatment would have saved his life. The Doctors attending him mechanically recorded the findings. These findings do not correlate with the physical condition of the deceased N.Arumugam. If the claim of the eighth respondent in the counter-affidavit that though it was recorded in the medical record that the deceased N.Arumugam was conscious, in reality he was not in a position to communicate is taken as true, then it goes without saying that the entries made in the medical record with regard to the condition of the deceased N.Arumugam is not correct. If the entries made in the medical record that the deceased N.Arumugam was conscious is taken as true, then the question arises as to why the Hospital authorities had not taken any steps to establish his identity and also failed to take note of his name, address and other details. In either case, the negligence on the part of the Hospital authorities is apparent on the
face of it.
75. It was already recorded that the Police Department,
especially the Police personnel serving in Kudimangalam Police Station and the Doctors, Nurses and staff members attending the deceased
N.Arumugam at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital had not performed their public duty and constitutional mandate as expected of them. Thus, they violated the fundamental right of the deceased N.Arumugam for competent medical treatment. That apart, the deceased N.Arumugam was allowed to die as an orphan without
any efforts taken for identifying his name, address, wife and children. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for compensation under public law remedy and a Writ of Mandamus can be issued directing the first respondent to pay
compensation.
76. The next question is what is the quantum of
compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner?
77. Though the petitioner claims a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) as compensation, there is no material produced to show his age, occupation and income. Medical treatment records show that the deceased N.Arumugam was aged about 60 years, whereas the petitioner claimed that her husband was aged 45 years.
78. In the First Information Report and Post Mortem
certificate, the age of the deceased N.Arumugam is shown as 45 years. From the information available, this Court is of the considered view that age given as 45 years in the Post Mortem certificate can be considered to fix the age of the deceased N.Arumugam for the reason that the Doctors might have arrived at the age of the deceased N.Arumugam on the basis of assessment of his growth and physical
features.
79. This Court in W.P.No.33517 of 2018, dated 19.04.2021 (A.Saraswathy Vs. The Secretary to Government
and others) adopted the procedure followed in Motor Vehicle Accident Cases for fixing the quantum of compensation. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, this Court is of the considered view that the deceased N.Arumugam aged about 45 years at the time of his death might have earned not less than a sum of Rs.7,500/- by engaging in any physical labour. Since he was aged about 45 years, as per the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi), 30% has to be ordered towards future prospects. 30% of Rs.7,500/- is Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, his monthly income comes to Rs.10,000/-. Annual income is Rs.1,20,000/-. One-fourth of this amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting one-fourth amount, the annual income comes to Rs.7,500 X 12 = Rs.90,000/-. As per the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in 2009 ACJ 1294 SC (Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the
corresponding multiplier is ’14’. Applying the said multiplier, loss of dependency works out to Rs.12,60,000/-. Apart from this amount, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and the children are entitled to Rs.25,000/- each (totalling Rs.75,000/-) towards loss of love and affection. The petitioner and her family members underwent enormous mental stress / agony from the date of giving complaint on 04.11.2014 till they were intimated about the death of the deceased N.Arumugam on 13.11.2014. This Court is of the considered view that it is necessary to award a reasonable sum for the untold mental agony and sufferings of the petitioner and her family members. Thus, this Court directs a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to be paid to the petitioner and her family members, as compensation for mental agony she and her family members went through and the total compensation works out to Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
only).
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded
1. Loss of Dependency (Rs.7,500 X 12 X 14) Rs.12,60,000/-
2. Loss of consortium to the petitioner Rs. 40,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection to the children (Rs.25,000 X 3) Rs. 75,000/-
4. Mental agony Rs. 1,25,000/-
Total Rs.15,00,000/-
80. The first respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the
petitioner at 6% interest per annum from the date of filing this petition till the date of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failure to pay the amount within three months would invite payment of interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment on the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- plus interest amount calculated at 6% per annum from the date of this petition till the date of order. The first respondent is at liberty to recover the amount from the concerned Police officials found responsible by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet for this mess and Doctors and other staff members, who were involved in the treatment of the deceased N.Arumugam while he was taking treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. Thus, the points are answered accordingly.
81. In the result,
(i) W.P(MD)No.32766 of 2014 is allowed by directing the fourth respondent to order further investigation on the manner in which the accident had happened and who was responsible for the accident and file a supplementary final report before the concerned Court for the Court to pass orders on the basis of the supplementary final report. The investigation has to be conducted by an officer not less than the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and has to be concluded by filing a supplementary final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) W.P(MD)No.32765 of 2014 is partly allowed by directing
the first respondent to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the petitioner at 6% interest per annum from the date of filing this petition till the date of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failure to pay the amount within three months would invite payment of interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment on the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- plus interest amount calculated at 6% per annum from
the date of this petition till the date of order. The first respondent is at liberty to recover the amount from the concerned Police officials found responsible by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet for this mess and Doctors and other staff members, who were involved in the treatment of the deceased N.Arumugam while he was taking treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.07.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ps
To:
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The District Collector, Tiruppur.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udumalpet,
Tiruppur District.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Kudimangalam Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
7.The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Dindigul District.
8.The Chief Medical Officer,
Coimbatore Medical College Hospital (Government), Coimbatore. 
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.,
ps
Pre-delivery Judgment in
W.P.Nos.32765 & 32766 of 2014
20.07.2022