Allahabad High Court
Sushila vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 6 December, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81530-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10405 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sushila Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Pandey,Shashwat Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard.
The petitioner claims that her husband died due to dog bite. Submission is that he was bit by a dog on 08.10.2023 and was admitted to Mahatma Jyoti Phule Joint District Hospital, Ambedkar Nagar on the same date. He was discharged on the same date at 09:35 P.M. The discharge slip, according to the petitioner, mentions the diagnosis as dog bite and chest pain. The writing on the discharge slip is not very clear. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no F.I.R. nor any post-mortem report which could point towards cause of death. The death occurred on 11.10.2023 i.e. on the third day after discharge.
According to the opposite parties, the requisites of the relevant Government Orders are not satisfied so as to extend the benefit to the petitioner of the scheme, namely, Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana.
Having noticed the facts as aforesaid, it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusion that death, in fact, was a result of dog bite. Reliance placed by petitioner's counsel upon a decision of this Court rendered in petition bearing Misc. Bench No.23983 of 2018 [Gaurav Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] is misplaced for the reason in that case it was the admitted case that death has resulted on account of snake bite but post-mortem report was not there, therefore, an opinion had been formed by this Court that the death being admitted as having occurred as a consequence of snake bite, all other things were mere formality. However, in this case, there is no such admission of the opposite parties. The dog bit late husband of the petitioner on 08.10.2023, he was discharged from hospital on the same date in the night and died on the third day. There is no material before us to persuade us to co-relate the death with dog bite. We are not experts in this field. The opposite parties cannot be faulted for having rejected the claim. We, however, leave it open for the petitioner to satisfy the opposite parties with evidence that the death, in fact, occurred due to dog bite, may be with reference to any treatment which may have been meted out to the deceased while he was admitted in the hospital but, we cannot interfere in the matter at this stage.
With these observations/ direction, the petition is disposed of.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 6.12.2024 Shanu/-