Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raul Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 October, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.7277/2016
Rasul Khan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Gwalior, Dated :22.10.2020
Shri J.P. Kushwah, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard through video conferencing.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:
The respondents may kindly be directed to
pay suitable compensation amount to the both sons of the petitioner named Ashin Khan and Mustfa for their whole life lively hood Rs.80 lakhs for each or as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. Cost may also awarded to the petitioner. Although various claims and counter-claims have been made by the petitioner as well as the respondent but for the adjudication of the present petition, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to go into the details of the facts of the case. It is suffice to mention that undisputed fact is that the sons of the petitioner are suffering from ear problem and they were suggested for cochlear implant. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application for grant of financial assistance under a Scheme floated by the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare on 2.5.2016. Earlier Rs.6,30,000/- was sanctioned for each of the sons of the petitioner but thereafter those cheques stood bounced.
It is the case of the respondents that thereafter, a draft of Rs.12,60,000/- was issued directly in favour of the hospital and the payments were released. Later on the concerning hospital refused to perform the surgery because the children of the petitioner were over age.
The said submission of the counsel for the respondent was controverted by the counsel for the petitioner.
2THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.7277/2016 Rasul Khan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Without entering into the factual dispute, the only question is that whether cochlear implant can be done or not? In this respect paragraph 5.12 of the writ petition is important which reads as under:
5.12 That, the future of the petitioner's sons has been destroyed because both children have attained majority and the said cochlear implant cannot be done as per suggestion of the doctors. No any amount has been given by the govt. and they have played with the emotions. The petitioner made representation to the respondent No.1 on dtd.08.08.16 (Annexure P/30) where he put his grievances.
Thus it is clear that now the cochlear implant is not possible because both the children of the petitioner have attained majority. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no direction can be issued to the respondents to provide any financial help for the treatment of the children under any applicable scheme.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok) ALOK KUMAR 2020.10.23 10:38:00 +05'30'