- (1.) This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking an inquiry in an incident which took place on 27.06.2011 in the Recovery Ward No. 5 of PGI, Chandigarh, in the course of which one Ghinder Singh was allegedly burnt alive. A further inquiry in respect of another fire incident in the operation theatre of the Emergency Wing of PGI, Chandigarh which occurred on 30.06.2011 has also been prayed for in this Public Interest Litigation.
(2.) The facts lie within a short compass. According to the petitioner, the deceased Ghinder Singh, who was admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh with multiple illness was sought to be resuscitated by use of a defibrillator on 27.06.2011 in Recovery Ward No. 5. In the course of the aforesaid procedure, electric sparks came out of the defibrillator and burnt the bandage on the body of the deceased. According to the petitioner, burn injuries were suffered by the deceased on different parts of the body as a result of which he died. The above facts, according to the petitioner, would go to show that the defibrillator machine was not well serviced and the wiring in the hospital premises also did not conform to the required parameters. There was negligence on the part of the doctors who, according to the petitioner, ran away immediately after the incident. In these circumstances, according to the petitioner, an inquiry into the detailed facts and circumstances surrounding the death of Ghinder Singh is called for. Hence, the Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner, it may be noticed at this stage, is a registered body.
(3.) The respondent No. 4 i.e. PGI, Chandigarh has filed a reply in the case. In para 3 of the reply, it is stated that the deceased was suffering from multiple diseases like diabetes mellitus, hepatitis, cirrhosis and above all colon cancer. According to the PGI, he was operated for the second time on 25.07.2011 (sic) (25.06.2011), but his condition deteriorated after the operation. As his heart and lungs were not functioning well he was put on drug support and ventilator. According to the respondent No. 4, the kidneys of the deceased also failed and his condition became critical. On 27.06.2011 at night, the heart beat of the deceased had stopped and the doctors responded to the situation and tried to revive the deceased by use of the defibrillator which is a standard protocol instrument. However, in the course of the use of the said instrument, there was an electric spark from it and the abdominal dressing, BP cuff and ventilator tubing lying adjacent to the patient caught fire which led to superficial burns in the chest and left arm of the patient. According to the PGI, the doctors and the attending staff doused the fire and continued with their efforts to revive the patient who, however, did not respond and was declared dead at about 10.45 PM on 27.06.2011. Insofar as the other fire incident in the operation theatre is concerned, according to the PGI, the same was an incident of smoke coming out of the AC duct which was promptly controlled. According to the PGI, adequate safety measures are in place in the PGI to protect the building and the inmates from accidental fire. The PGI in the affidavit had further stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the doctors had run away from the patient is wholly incorrect. In fact, the doctors and the staff had doused the fire and continued with the procedure to revive the patient.;