Orissa High Court
Nabaghana Nayak vs State Of Orissa And Others ......... ... on 28 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ORI 71
Author: B.R.Sarangi
Bench: B.R.Sarangi
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 2953 of 2013
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
----------
Nabaghana Nayak ......... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa and others ......... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. S. Mohanty, A.P. Rath, S.K. Barik, S.S. Mohapatra and P.K. Das, Advocates For Opp.Parties : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate (O.Ps. No.1 to 2) M/s. B.P. Tripathy, D.Pradhan and G.S. Das, Advocates (O.P. No.3) Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty (Senior Advocate) along with M/s. D.Mohanty, S.Mohanty, D.Varadwaj, S.Mohanty and A.Mohanty, Advocates (O.P. NO.4) 2 PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI Date of hearing : 21.01.2021 : Date of judgment: 28.01.2021 DR. B.R.SARANGI, J. The petitioner, who is a farmer living below the poverty line, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking compensation for the loss of his eyesight due to defective surgery conducted in the eye camp organized by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, having faced some problem in his eye, contacted opposite party no.3, who detected that the petitioner was suffering from cataract which was to be operated. The petitioner, being canvassed by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara, was selected to undergo cataract surgery at their eye camp, which was scheduled to be held at Gopabandhu Club, Marshaghai on 25.09.2011. As per their advice, the petitioner 3 remained present on the date fixed (25.09.2011) and undergone surgery for cataract and he also took certain medicines and injections. On the next day, the post operation check up was undertaken by the doctor, before whom the petitioner complained loss of his eyesight and he was advised for further check up on 02.10.2011. On that date, though the complaint was persisting, but the same was not taken care of by the doctor concerned and the petitioner was advised to have a follow up check up to be done on 13.10.2011. On the said date, no doctor came for check up, but only nursing staff of the hospital concluded check up and they could not solve the problem of the petitioner with regard to loss of eyesight, in spite of repeated report by him. As a result, he sustained a severe post operative pain in his right eye. 2.1 Finding no other alternative, the petitioner rushed to JPM Rotary Eye Hospital & Research Institute on 14.10.2011 for check up. As per their advice, the petitioner again visited the said hospital on 20.10.2011 and was admitted as an indoor patient for his eye treatment. He was 4 undergone surgery on 28.10.2011 and discharged on 29.10.2011. The discharge summery report would indicate that the petitioner sustained retinal detachment vitreous haemorrhage and the said operation was costly one. The review check up was made on different dates by JPM Rotary Eye Hospital, but despite the best efforts of the doctor the eyesight of the petitioner could not develop and finally the same was lost due to negligent and defective operation done by opposite party no.3.
2.2 Consequentially, the petitioner approached the Chief District Medical Officer, Kendrapara for disability certificate and after thorough scrutiny and maintaining the formalities; he was issued with a disability certificate granted by the medical board on 01.06.2012 showing the disability as 60% and the category of visual handicapped. The Sarapanch of Marshaghai Gram Panchayat has also issued a certificate to the petitioner with regard to his poor financial condition and BPL category, as well as loss of his eyesight due to defective operation undertaken by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital 5 & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara. The petitioner though issued a lawyer's notice to the Chief Organizer of Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara for defective operation undertaken by him, but received no reply. Therefore, claiming for compensation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. Mr. Millan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that loss of eyesight of the petitioner was due to defective surgery undertaken by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara, which has caused grave hardship to him, as the same has not only changed his lifestyle but also severely affected his livelihood. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the damages caused to him due to defective surgery undertaken by opposite party no.3. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgments of this Court in The Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, 6 Cuttack v. State of Orissa, 2011 (I) OLR 443 and Sri Prabir Kumar Das, Advocate & Human Rights Activist v. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Deptt., Govt. of Orissa, Bhubaneswar and others, 2012 (II) OLR 81.
4. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties no.1 and 2, referring to the counter affidavit filed on their behalf on 18.09.2014, contended that Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara is a registered organization under Odisha Clinical Establishment (Control & Regulation) Rules, 2017 and the said organization is authorized to perform cataract surgery in Kendrapara district fulfilling all the criteria as laid down by the Government. Accordingly, opposite party no.3 has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the CDMO, Kendrapara-opposite party no.2 on 19.05.2011 for the activities of prevention of blindness control programme. As per the terms and conditions laid down in clause-4(e) & (f) of that MoU, the NGO Hospital, namely, Basanta Kumari Rural Eye 7 Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara agreed to be responsible for post operative care including management of complications, if any, and post-operative counseling regarding use of glasses and also follow up services care including refraction & provision of glasses, if required, providing best possible correction. It is also further stated, as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India, in clause-12(b) it is clearly mentioned that the NGO Hospital is solely responsible for guarantying quality & efficient services based on programme's technical & operational norms. As the cataract operation in the eye of the petitioner was undertaken by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara on 25.09.2011, thereby opposite party no.3 is only responsible for post-operative care. It is also further contended that the petitioner has not reported before the Eye Specialist of District Headquarters Hospital, Kendrapara nor to opposite party no.2 for his post-operative complications, if any. Thereby, it is contended that neither opposite party no.1 nor opposite party no.2 is liable for 8 payment of any compensation for the loss of eyesight of the petitioner due to surgery done by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara.
5. Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Varadwaj, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 contended that the petitioner having undergone surgery for cataract on 25.09.2011 in the camp of opposite party no.3, on the next day he complained loss of eyesight and sustained severe post-operative pain in his right eye and after 19 days of surgery the petitioner came to JPM Rotary Eye Hospital-opposite party no.4 for check up complaining of pain and low vision. On examination it was detected that the petitioner had a very low vision with very low intraocular pressure (4mm of Hg.). On indirect ophthalmoscopy he had a total retiral detachment with vitreous haemorrhage with large retinal tear which might have occurred during injection for local anesthesia for cataract surgery. Therefore, the petitioner was advised by opposite party no.4-hospital for vitreoretinal surgery under very poor 9 visual prognosis and the same was also explained to him. Opposite party no.4 also explained the petitioner that the doctors are just trying to revive the vision which may not be successful as eye is grossly injured. After understanding the same, the petitioner agreed for vitreoretinal surgery, for which he underwent surgery on 28.10.2011 and was discharged on 29.10.2011. The petitioner's vision could not be revived in spite of best efforts of the doctors. It is only the misfortune of the petitioner, for which the operation undertaken by opposite party no.4 could not be successful. In any case, the damages already caused to the petitioner could not be retrieved even by conducting the second operation and, as such, no negligence having been committed by opposite party no.4, the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation from the said opposite party.
6. Though learned counsel Mr. B.P. Tripathy and associates have entered appearance for opposite party no.3 by filing vakalatnama on 02.09.2013 and in the meantime more than seven years have passed, but no counter affidavit has 10 been filed rebutting the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ application against the said opposite party nor anybody is present from the side of the said opposite party at the time of hearing. Thereby, applying the doctrine of non- traverse, this Court proceeded with the hearing of the matter.
7. This Court heard Mr. Millan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 2; and Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Varadwaj, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 through virtual mode. On the basis of the pleadings available on record, since it is an old case of the year 2013, this Court heard the matter and disposed of the same at the stage of admission without granting any further adjournment.
8. The facts delineated above are not in dispute. The petitioner, who is a farmer and a BPL card holder, faced 11 with eye problem and being persuaded by opposite party no.3 undergone surgery in the eye camp organized by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara on 25.09.2011. On the next day, as per advice of the doctor, he had gone for routine checkup, where he complained loss of his eyesight. On the basis of advice given by the doctor, though he was administered certain medicine, but he could not get any relief nor subsequently was he attended by the doctor who had conducted surgery on his eye. As his pain was increased day by day, finding no other alternative he proceeded to JPM, Rotary Eye Hospital, CDA, Cuttack, where he underwent second surgery with an anticipation that his vision would revive. But as damage had already caused to the eyesight of the petitioner to a higher extent, even on corrective surgery made for second time by JPM, Rotary Eye Hospital, the defect in his eye could not be recovered. Consequentially, the petitioner lost his eyesight and on being examined by opposite party no.2, the medical board issued a disability certificate of 60% of loss of eyesight in the 12 category of visual impaired. Loss of eyesight has a significant impact on the lives of those who experience it as well as on their families, their friends, and society. Such a loss has been caused to the petitioner for the remaining part of his life, which cannot be appropriately assessed or compensated in any form whatsoever. But interest of justice would apparently be served if an endeavour is made at this stage to award some compensation, as a solace to the petitioner that a wrongdoer has been penalized.
9. Even though it is a very onerous job to quantity the exact amount of compensation for loss of eyesight, but before entering into the arena of such a question, this Court deems it proper to explain what "compensation" means. As per Oxford Dictionary, the word "compensation" signifies that which is given recompense, an equivalent rendered damages, on the other hand, constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained, the value estimated in money, or something loss or withheld.
13
10. The expression "compensation" ordinarily used as an equivalent to damages, although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damage in an action for the breach.
11. In Houghton Main Colliery Co. Ltd. In Re, (1956) 3 All ER 300, the apex Court held that the word "compensation" signifies that which is given in recompense an equivalent rendered-damages, on the other hand, constitute the sum of money claimed, or adjudged to be paid as compensation for loss or injury sustained, the value estimated in money of something lost or withheld. The term "compensation" etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; as, where there is loss of pension rights, allowance for income-tax respectively payable in respect of pension has to be deducted.
12. In State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas, AIR 1969 SC 634, the apex court held that the expression "compensation" is not defined in the Constitution. In ordinary 14 parlance the expression: "Compensation" means anything given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make amends for loss recompense, remuneration or pay, it need not therefore necessarily be in terms of money. The phraseology of the constitutional provision also indicates that compensation need not necessarily be in terms of money because it expressly provides that the law may specify the principles on which, and the manner in which, compensation is to be determined and "given". If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression "paid" would have been more appropriate.
13. In Lucknow Development Authroity v. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787, the apex Court held that according to dictionary it means, "compensating or being compensated; thing given as recompense". In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. 15
14. In Kiranabala Dandapat v. Secy. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. AIR 1998 Ori 159, this Court held as follows:
"'Compensation' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay; it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which compensation is to be determined as given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damified may receive equal value for his loss or be made whole in respect of his injury; something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received recompense for whole injury suffered, remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage or every description. The expression 'compensation' is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to 'damage' although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach."
15. K. Narasimha Murthy v. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 1109 (Karnataka), wherein the Division Bench in an appeal preferred by the claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 succinctly laid down the legal principle after extracting the relevant paras from the 16 decision of the cases in Admiralty Comrs. V. S.S. Valeria, (1922) 2 AC 242; Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co., (1880) 5 AC 25; H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England); Ward v. James, (1965) 1 AII ER 563; Basavaraj v. Shekhar, 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka); Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England); Phgillips v. South Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406; Fowler v. Grace, (1970) 114 Sol Jo 193; and (1969) 3 AII ER 1528; and referring to McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn. in support of the conclusion for determination of the compensation for personal injury both for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses in favour of the injured petitioners, which reads as under:
"(18) Viscount Dunedin in Admiralty Comrs v. S.S. Valeria, (1922) 2 AC 242, has observed thus:
'The true method of expression, I think, is that in calculating damages you are to consider what is the pecuniary consideration which will make good to the sufferer, as far as money can do so, the loss which he has suffered as the natural result of the wrong done to him.' (19) Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co., (1880) 5 AC 25, has observed thus:
'Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given ... you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of 17 money which will put the person who has been injured...in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong.' (21) Lord Morris in his memorable speech in H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), pointed out this aspect in the following words:
'Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But the money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All the Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.' (22) In the above case, their Lordships of the House of Lords observed that the bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles plaintiff to the damage and that the amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury. Their Lordships emphasized that in personal injury cases the courts should not award merely token damages but they should grant substantial amount which could be regarded as adequate compensation.
(23) In Wards v. James, (1965) 1 AII ER 563, speaking for the Court of Appeal in England, Lord Denning while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury laid down three basic principles:
'Firstly, assessability: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may 18 be given in similar cases, otherwise, there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the pubic good.' (25) In Basavaraj v. Shekhar, 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka), a Division Bench of this Court held:
'If the original position cannot be restored-as indeed in personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously be-the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so 'make good' the damage.' (26) Therefore, the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the court should award to injured person such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. But, it is manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate an injured man and renew a shattered human frame.
(27) Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), said:
'To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but ... no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment.' (28) The necessity that the damages should be full and adequate was stressed by the Court of Queen's Bench in Fair v. London and North Western Rly. Co., (1869 21 LT 326. In Ruston v. National Coal Board, (1953) 1 AII ER 314, Singleton, L.J. said;
'Every member of this court is anxious to do all he can to ensure that the damages are adequate for the injury suffered, so far as there can be compensation 19 for an injury, and to help the parties and others to arrive at a fair and just figure.' (29) Field, J. in Phillips v. South Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, held:
'You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation, once and for all. He has done no wrong; he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered."
16. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086, the apex Court observed that in appropriate cases, the Court discharging constitutional duties can pass orders for payment of money in the nature of compensation. Consequent upon deprivation of the fundamental right to life and liberty of a petitioner the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's right.
17. In Kumari v. State of Tamilnadu, 1992 ACJ 283(SC), the apex Court overruling the decision of the High Court of Tamil Nadu observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked for awarding 20 compensation to a victim, who suffered due to negligence of the State or its functionaries. The same principle has been reiterated in various judgments of the different High Courts including this Court and also the apex Court observed that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court can issue a direction for payment of compensation if there is deliberate act of negligence on the part of the railway administration.
This Court, while considering the grant of compensation in respect of a victim lost her life in an accident due to negligence on the part of the railway administration, have decided in Pranabandhu Pradhan & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr. 2019 (II) ILR-CUT-770.
18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid principles laid down by the apex Court, various High Courts including this Court in the matter of awarding compensation to the victim in a similar nature of case like that of this writ petition, this Court, entertaining a suo motu PIL registered as W.P.(C) No. 8228 of 2010 (The Registrar (Judicial), Orissa 21 High Court, Cuttack v. State of Orissa) issued following directions:
"5. In the light of the circumstances as recorded hereinabove and based on the enquiry conducted by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Koraput- Jeypore, we dispose of the suo-motu writ petition with the following directions :-
(i) The Government of Orissa in Health and Family Welfare Department is directed to grant compensation a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each in favour of Smt. Nagali Amiamma, Smt.S Gunnamma and Sri Mrutyunjaya Panda for their pain and suffering.
(ii) All the Government hospitals of the State should ensure proper pre-operative assessment of all patients prior to recommending surgery, especially when "Health Camps" are organized to ensure proper evaluation of patients.
(iii) Whenever a health camp is conducted, the doctors of such Government Hospital should ensure that adequate medical personnel are available to conduct such surgery, so that each individual patient is given adequate care.
Attempt for achieving huge targets or records should be discouraged and the authorities must ensure that such number of surgeries take place, as is practically possible and permissible. In the present case we find that only one surgeon has carried out on an average 43 cataract operations per day over a period of seven days. Obviously, adequate care could not have been given to each patient as is required and each patient deserves.
(iv) The Journalists/Press Reporters must ensure proper verification of facts, prior to sending the same for publication to their respective news papers/magazines. In the 22 present case, it is found that Mr. Satyanarayan Pattnaik, Press Reporter of the Times of India had sent his report merely based on oral statements made by a few patients, without any manner attempting to cross check or verify such facts. Further, resorting to headlines, as used in the present case should be avoided and the same be duly toned down keeping in view the public duty it owes to its readers and not to create panic in circumstances which are not warranted."
As per the above directions, all the Government hospitals of the State were to ensure proper pre-operative assessment of all patients prior to recommending surgery, especially when "Health Camps" are organized to ensure proper evaluation of patients. Whenever a health camp is conducted, the doctors of such Government Hospital should ensure that adequate medical personnel are available to conduct such surgery, so that each individual patient is given adequate care. Attempt for achieving huge targets or records should be discouraged and the authorities must ensure that such number of surgeries take place, as is practically possible and permissible. In view of such direction given by this Court, being a welfare State the opposite parties no.1 and 2 owe a responsibility to carry out the direction given by this Court in its letter and 23 spirit. Meaning thereby, when Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara arranged an eye camp, the State Government hospitals owe a responsibility to ensure proper pre-operative assessment of all patients prior to recommending surgery, especially when camps are organized to ensure proper evaluation of patients. In addition to that, the doctors of such Government Hospital should ensure that the adequate medical personnel are available to conduct such surgery. Nothing has been placed on record by way of counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no.1 and 2 to show that they had adhered to the directions given by this Court, as mentioned above.
19. In Sri Prabir Kumar Das mentioned supra, this Court, taking note of the judgment of this Court in The Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack (supra), has given a specific direction in paragraph-18 thereof, which reads as under:-
"18. Before parting with the matter, we make the following observations and directions:24
(i) After granting permission to any NGO to hold eye camp for cataract operation, the Government must monitor and supervise the entire work of the concerned NGO.
(ii) Necessary guidelines in detail may be issued by the Government for taking up pre-
operation and post-operation care.
(iii) Before granting permission to an NGO, the said NGO must ensure that operation in camps must be undertaken by qualified/efficient doctors.
(iv) The patients must not be allowed to leave the camp immediately after operation, wherever the situations so demand.
(v) Before the granting permission, the District Administration must be satisfied that the NGO has adequate infrastructure facilities, equipment and required number of qualified doctors and Assistants to undertake the operation work in the camp keeping in view the number of persons to be operated.
(vi) After operation in the eye camps, good quality sun glass, power glass and required medicines should be provided to the patients.
(vii) In case of failure of the operation because of laches on the part of any NGO and/or Government authority, the suffering patients must be adequately compensated immediately.
These are all necessary to achieve the avowed object enshrined in the Scheme of the Central Government on the basis of which the NGOs are functioning and provided with financial assistance."
25
20. As it reveals from the pleadings available on record, Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara has not followed the guidelines and principles set out in the judgment mentioned supra. But in para-17 of the judgment in Sri Prabir Kumar Das mentioned supra, this Court directed the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) to each of the persons, who had lost their eyesight fully, and Rs.1,75,000/- (rupees one lakh and seventy five thousand) to each of the persons who had lost their eyesight partially, and further directed the State Government to cause necessary enquiry through an officer not below the rank of Secretary of any department of the Government of Odisha to find out as to who is responsible for loss of eyesight. If it is found that the NGO is responsible for this unfortunate incident, Government is at liberty to recover the entire amount of compensation directed to be paid by it from the aforesaid NGO (Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara).
26
21. Keeping in view the parameters laid down by this Court, since the petitioner already lost 60% of his eyesight as per the disability certificate issued by the medical board, a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- be paid by opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the petitioner, which shall be recovered from the NGO (Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara) by the opposite party-State. Needless to mention, the entire compensation amount shall be paid as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this judgment.
22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
................................
DR. B.R.SARANGI, JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 28th January, 2021 GDS/Ajaya.
27