State told to compensate for medical trauma

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the State to consider the plea of a 22-year-old youngster seeking employment for facing medical trauma due to mistreatment at a government hospital.

The narration of events reveals that the tertiary care system in the State is undoubtedly responsible for the medical trauma that the victim was put through, wrote Justice Anita Sumanth while disposing of the petition.

As a measure of compensation, the judge directed the State to pay Rs 2 lakh to the victim within six weeks. To secure the future of the victim, the judge directed the victim to furnish the details of his qualifications and employment registration to the Salem collector along with an application for appropriate employment. Further, the court directed the collector to consider the application of the victim and recruit him to a suitable post, based on his educational qualification.

Petitioner Sasikala, the mother of the victim moved the petition in HC seeking to direct the State to pay reasonable compensation and take action against the doctor responsible for the mistreatment.

According to the petitioner, the victim Vishnu was admitted to the Mettur GH on October 27, 2016, for stomach pain. The victim was attended by doctor Ramesh, and without getting consent from the patient or kin, the doctor performed a surgery, said the petitioner.

Post-surgery the victim was admitted to the ICU. He experienced bleeding in his stools and had constant pain, said the petitioner. Due to this, a scan was done in a private hospital which revealed the formation of pus in the stomach. He was later admitted to Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam GH and a laparoscopic surgery was performed. After that based on the advice of doctors, the victim was shifted to a private hospital in Erode for another surgery, said the petitioner.

When the victim was admitted to the private hospital the petitioner approached doctor Ramesh for a discharge summary as well as other treatment particulars, but the same was not supplied and instead, the petitioner was threatened with dire consequences.

Hence, the petitioner complained in the Chief Minister’s cell against the doctor. Despite the complaint being registered, no action was taken forcing the petitioner to approach the high court.