AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Being aggrieved by the order in W.P.(MD) No. 4978/2007, disposing of the Writ Petition giving liberty to the Writ Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, the Writ Petitioner has preferred this Writ Appeal.
Briefly stated relevant facts are as follows:
(a) The Writ Petitioner/Appellant''s wife M.J. Sidhi Ayisha was treated as an inpatient in the 1st Respondent Hospital from 21.02.2007 to 23.02.2007 for delivery of child, under the care and treatment of the 2nd Respondent. The wife of the Appellant was shifted to Shifa Hospitals on 23.02.2007 where she died on 01.03.2007. The Appellant filed W.P.(MD) No. 4978/2007 seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent to furnish the Medical Records, with connected documents, relating to the Appellant''s wife while she had taken treatment as in-patient in the 1st Respondent''s Hospital in compliance of Regulation 1.3.2 of Indian Medical Council (Professional Contact, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (in short "the Regulations").
(b) Before the learned Single Judge, the Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance through their Counsel and furnished the particulars in Format provided in Appendix-3. According to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner/Appellant, the Format furnished to the Counsel for the Appellant does not comply with all the details which are required to be maintained as per Regulation 1.3 of the Regulations.
(c) The learned Single Judge also heard Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, the counsel appeared for the 3rd Respondent - The Tamil Nadu Medical Council. Upon consideration of the submissions made, the learned Single Judge expressed the view that the 1st Respondent has complied with the requirements of Regulation 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the Regulations. The learned Single Judge held that if the Writ Petitioner is still aggrieved and if any further records are required, it is open to the Writ Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the forum, in which he seeks remedy for the alleged negligence of Respondents 1 and 2 in treating his wife.
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. M. Ajmal Khan has vehemently contended that Regulation 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the Regulations stipulate to produce medical records as to the nature of treatment given to the patient and other particulars and the format furnished by Respondents 1 and 2 in Appendix-3 would not satisfy the requirements of Medical Regulations. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that without appreciating the facts, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Writ Petitioner/Appellant to seek remedy before the appropriate forum, even to call for the entire medical records. The learned Counsel further submitted that unless the entire medical records, as per the Regulations, are furnished to the Writ Petitioner/Appellant, the Appellant would not be in a position to go before the appropriate forum so as to establish the medical negligence committed by Respondents 1 and 2.
We have also heard the learned Counsel Mr. Veera. Kathiravan for the 3rd Respondent. The learned Counsel Mr. Veera. Kathirvan has submitted that as per the prescribed format, the Respondents 1 and 2 have furnished the details in Appen-dix-3. The learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent has further submitted that Medical Practitioners are statutorily bound to maintain medical records in prescribed format, containing necessary particulars and in case of failure to maintain those records, it would amount to ''Misconduct'' and on representations being received in this regard, suitable action would taken by the 3rd Respondent.
Regulation 1.3 of the Regulations reads as under:
1.3. Maintenance of medical records:
1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard profrma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix 3.
1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.
Before the learned Single Judge, in compliance of Regulation 1.3.2, format/Appendix-3 was furnished. If according to the Writ Petitioner/Appellant, if the particulars furnished by Respondents 1 and 2, do not satisfy the requirements of Regulations, it is always open to the Writ Petitioner/Appellant to seek appropriate remedy before the concerned forum. Exercising Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the compliance or otherwise of Regulation 1.3.1 of the Regulations.
learned Counsel Mr. M. Ajmal Khan has drawn our attention to the legal aspects of Medical Records and the requirements for keeping medical records as mandated by American Laws. learned Counsel has drawn or attention to Indiana State Laws for keeping medical records, which reads as under:
...an inpatient hospital record shall include identification data, chief complaint, present illness, past history, family history, physical examination progress notes, reports on consultations, copy of transfer forms, reports on laboratory, x-ray and operative procedures, special reports, doctor''s orders (signed and dated), notes and observations, treatment records of nurses, dietitian, therapists, and other personnel, reports on vital signs, final discharge summary, and summary sheet giving final diagnosis, complications, operative procedures, and signature of the attending physician.
(Medical Record Management Edua K. Huffman, RR.A 9th Edition, Revised by American Medical Record Association, 1990, Physicians'' Record Company, Bearwyn Illinois, U.S.A.)
learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that as per the above mandate, Respondents 1 and 2 are statutorily bound to furnish necessary particulars as to the treatment given to the patient and in the present case, the particulars furnished by Respondents 1 and 2 would not satisfy Regulation 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the Regulations.
As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, if Respondents 1 and 2 have not maintained the records as per the requirements, it is always open to the Writ Petitioner/Appellant to make representation before the Medical Council regarding non-compliance of the Regulations. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and not a matter of course or right. When the records have been produced, whether they are in compliance with Regulation 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court. In our considered view, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to leave the party to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.
Before parting with the case, we are constrained to express our opinion that the learned Single Judge fell in error in expressing views "I am of the considered view that the first Respondent has complied with the requirements of Regulation 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the Regulations." Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court cannot arrive at conclusion as to the compliance of Regulation 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the Regulations. The aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge are ordered to be deleted. It is open to the Writ Petitioner/Appellant to agitate before the concerned forum whether Respondents 1 and 2 have actually complied with the requirements of Regulation 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the Regulations. We make it clear that if any representation is preferred by the Writ Petitioner/Appellant before the 3rd Respondent Medical Council, the 3rd Respondent shall consider the same and pass orders, in accordance with law.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs.