Wrong Knee Operated? Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Fresh Inquiry Citing Violation Of State Clinical Establishments Law
Saahas Arora
8 Dec 2025 12:31 PM IST
The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted relief to a knee-surgery patient (petitioner) after a hospital allegedly operated on the wrong knee and conducted an inquiry into the same through an improperly constituted committee.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition where the petitioner argued that the Committee– tasked with enquiring into her complaint regarding operation on the wrong (right) knee instead of the left knee, was not constituted in accordance with the law.
The Court referred to Section 13B of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010 (2010 Adhiniyam) which prescribes the procedure for raising grievances relating to wilful medical negligence, and Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Niyam, 2013 (2013 Rules), which mandates that the constitution of a committee of enquiry must be headed by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector and should include a specialist doctor of discipline.
As the inquiry committee consisted of four members- all of whom were doctors, and was chaired by a doctor serving as an Assistant Professor at CIMS, Justice Parth Prateem Sahu held,
“From perusal of inquiry report, Annexure P-1, it is clear that the constitution and composition of the Committee which has conducted the inquiry on the complaint of petitioner, is not as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2013 and therefore, inquiry report submitted by the Committee which is not constituted in accordance with provisions of Rules, 2013 cannot be considered to be a valid report on complaint submitted by petitioner and, hence, in opinion of this Court, this inquiry report is having no force in eyes of law."
"Indisputably, complaint was lodged by petitioner to the Collector, who is Supervisory Authority under the Adhiniyam, 2010 and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., Rules, 2013. From report it is not appearing that Committee was constituted by Supervisory Authority and therefore, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing Supervisory Authority/Collector to consider complaint of petitioner afresh and constitute a committee in accordance with provisions contained in Adhiniyam, 2010 and Rules, 2013.”, the Single Judge concluded.
The petitioner had initially approached the Lalchandani Hospital (Respondent 10) hospital in lieu of continuous knee joint pain, and was thereafter admitted to Aarbee Institute of Medical Science (Respondent 9) on the recommendation of the Respondent 10 hospital. While the pain persisted in the left knee, her right knee was operated and upon objection raised, her left knee was also operated. Aggrieved, she made several complaints to different authorities including Chief Medical and Health Officer, Collector, and Superintendent of Police, post which a Committee was constituted to inquire into the alleged medical negligence.
The petitioner challenged the constitution of the Committee, claiming that the same was not in accordance with the provisions of the 2010 Adhiniyam and the 2013 Rules, particularly Rule 18-- which envisages that a complaint received shall be examined through a Committee chaired by an officer of a rank higher or equivalent to a Deputy Collector. However, it was submitted that an officer of such a rank was not presiding over the proceedings of the Committee.
It was further argued that the Committee had concluded that there was no medical negligence on part of the doctors, thereby, blatantly overlooking the fact that the left knee had to be treated. Such medical negligence on part of the respondent hospitals was argued to have caused hardship and mental agony to the petitioner, and the same necessitated proper inquiry into the matter and appropriate compensation.
In contrast, the respondents argued that after receipt of the initial complaint, a team comprising four doctors inquired into the knee problem and concluded that the petitioner was suffering problems in both legs, and operation was done upon the consent given by the petitioner and her family members.
As the Committee constituted to inquire into the complaint comprised of doctors with the Chairmanship being given to an Assistant Professor of the Surgery Department at CIMS, the Court held that that Committee was not in accordance with the law.
Disposing of the matter, the Court directed Respondent 4 to consider the complaint of the petitioner afresh and get it inquired in line with the 2010 Adhiniyam and the 2013 Rules.
Case Details:
Case Number: WPC No. 2177 of 2024
Case Title: Mrs. Shobha Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors