Bombay High Court
Sujata Mukunda Manerao vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 4 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004ACJ1103, 2003(3)MHLJ571
Author: R.K. Batta
Bench: R.K. Batta, P.S. Brahme
JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J.
1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court on account of death of her son Rajesh in the Central Prison, Nagpur. Initially, an affidavit of only Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur alone was filed. The affidavits of Medical Officer who attended on the deceased were not filed. Therefore, this Court had directed that affidavits of the Medical Officers be filed and in addition the Secretary, Home Department was also directed to file an affidavit. The main object behind directing the Secretary, Home Department to file the affidavit was that he should look into the matter personally and after ascertaining the correct position, file an affidavit before the Court.
2. We have heard Miss. Tajwar Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Jog, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the deceased died on account of negligence and lack of medical treatment on the part of the jail authorities and that even an attempt was made to fabricate the record to show that the deceased had died while taking treatment in the hospital. Relying upon Article 21 of the Constitution and judgments of the Apex Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and Ors., . P. M. Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal and Anr., , Muktaram Sitaram Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1997 Cri.LJ. 3458, it has been urged that adequate compensation be awarded to the petitioner on account of death of son of the petitioner in the Central Prison, Nagpur for want of proper, adequate and immediate treatment which was required and which was denied to him on account of the lapses committed by the jail authorities.
3. On the other hand, the learned A. P. P. urged before us that the deceased had five criminal cases pending against him; that he was suffering from cirrhosis and that the medical record shows that proper and adequate treatment was given and all necessary and required precaution were taken by the jail authorities and that no case of negligence or want of medical treatment has been established. She also contended that, in order to establish negligence in relation to death of son of the petitioner, an enquiry will have to be ordered and without ordering any enquiry no responsibility can be fixed on the jail authorities in the matter.
4. We have gone through the records. The son of the petitioner was admitted in the Central Prison, Nagpur on 26th January, 2002. As per record, the complaint of vomiting, headache and body ache was made by the prisoner on 24-7-2002. He was examined by Dr. Mujumdar on 24-7-2002 and after first aid treatment and medicines, he was referred to the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison. The Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison examined the deceased who noticed that the deceased had fever off and on and the deceased was kept for observation. He was admitted for observation on 25-7-2002. On examination, the Chief Medical Officer found that probably it was a case of malarial fever with severe anemia [pallor +++ (Positive)] and he was advised blood transfusion and for that purpose, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur. It appears that the Chief Medical Officer also examined him later on 25-7-2002 and placed on record that he be informed SOS. On 26-7-2002 the Chief Medical Officer again examined him at 8.30 A.M. and he was sent to Govt. Medical College Hospital, Nagpur at 10.30 A.M. The case of the respondents is that the deceased died on the way to the hospital as the record of the hospital shows that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital. The G.M.C. hospital, Nagpur certified death of the deceased at 10.55A.M. When the learned A.P.P. was asked as to how many times the Chief Medical Officer had examined the deceased on 26th April, 2002 it was stated that the Chief Medical Officer had examined the deceased only once and in fact, the Chief Medical Officer, in his affidavit, also speaks of examination of the deceased in the morning only once. However, the medical record and the O.P.D. record would go to show that, in fact, the Chief Medical Officer had examined the deceased twice on 26-7-2002 and we shall deal with this aspect at a little later stage.
5. The operation cover up in this matter started immediately after death of the deceased as can be seen from the letter which is at page No. 8 of the record which is written by the Superintendent of Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur to the petitioner who is mother of the deceased. In this letter, the mother of deceased was informed that the condition of her son had suddenly deteriorated as a result of which he was sent to Government Medical College, Nagpur on 26-7-2002 at 10.30 A.M. for further treatment and while undergoing medical treatment, he died this day namely 26-7-2002 at 12.05 O' Clock. Two affidavits have been filed to explain as to how in this letter it was stated that the deceased has died at 12.05 O' Clock while taking treatment in the Government Medical College hospital, Nagpur. The factual position is that the deceased had died at 10.55 A.M. and there is a certificate of Government Medical College hospital, Nagpur on record to show that the deceased had died at 10.55 A.M. The said certificate is at page 38. The record further shows that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital. The affidavit of jail guard Mohd. Haq shows that the deceased had died on the way. The explanation given in the two affidavits to explain these discrepancies are not at all convincing, but the explanation is the result of after thought and with a view of cover up the lapses. As per the medical record it was noticed by the Chief Medical Officer that the deceased was probably suffering from malarial fever with severe anemia [pallor +++ (Positive)] and he was advised blood transfusion. The post mortem report shows that the petitioner died due to hemolytic anemia which is the result of loss of red blood cells and for that purpose it appears that blood transfusion was advised. In his affidavit, the Chief Medical Officer has stated that as the deceased was suffering from Malaria, the malarial toxin cause destruction of the blood cells and the total red blood cells count became very low, the hemoglobin percentage was markedly diminished and there was a leucopoenia i.e. acute hemolytic anemia. In view of this, why the deceased was not sent for immediate blood transfusion on 25-7-2002 is not quite understandable. Even though the Chief Medical Officer recorded in the case papers that he be informed SOS of the condition of the deceased, there is no affidavit on record to show as to what was the condition of the deceased on the intervening night between 25th and 26th of July. The said record was either not maintained or has been suppressed from the Court and no affidavit of the Doctor on the night duty has been placed on record to show as to what was the condition of the deceased during the night. According to the affidavit filed by the Chief Medical Officer, he had examined the deceased at 8.30 A.M. and at that time, he found him to be semi-conscious. Even then, no urgent steps were taken to shift the deceased to the Government Medical College for further proper, adequate and immediate treatment. The deceased was kept in the jail till 10.30 A.M. and it is only at 10.30 A.M. that he was pushed to the Medical College Hospital and he, admittedly, died on the way and was brought to the Government hospital dead.
6. We have already pointed out that we had specifically asked the learned A.P.P. as to how many times the Chief Medical Officer examined the deceased on 26-7-2002 and to our specific querry, the learned A.P.P. had stated that the Chief Medical Officer had examined the deceased only once. When the learned A.P.P. and the Chief Medical Officer, who was present in the Court, was confronted with two different entries of 26-7-2002; one of the medical case papers record and other in the O.P.D. Card, which were at variance, no further explanation could be offered. According to the Chief Medical Officer, when he has examined the deceased at 8.30 P.M. the deceased was semi-conscious, pulse was feeble, Blood pressure was 90/60 mm of HG and even at that time, he was ordered to be referred to the Government Medical College hospital as emergency. There is another entry in the medical record of 26-7-2002 which shows that the deceased was gasping ++, respiration down, Blood pressure not recordable. It appears that only after this examination the deceased was sought to be shifted to the Government Medical College Hospital, but the delay was too much and it cost the life of deceased for want of proper, adequate, effective and immediate direction which was necessary in the case of the deceased as is crystal clear from the medical record. It appears that it is only with a view to ward off the responsibility and to cover up the lapses towards the deceased as a last resort he was pushed towards the Government Medical College Hospital, but, unfortunately, he died on the way and could not even reach the hospital so as to get proper, effective, adequate and immediate direction. The negligence is writ large and is borne out by the medical records and other papers and there is no need for conducting any enquiry in this respect. The jail authorities, in our opinion, are clearly negligent in providing proper, effective and immediate treatment to the deceased and if the said treatment had been provided, there was every possibility of saving life of the deceased.
7. It is bounden duty of the State to look after health of the inmates in the jails since they cannot take treatment on their own and for the purpose of treatment, they are at the mercy of the hospital authorities. Proper medical aid to the inmates is a right available to them under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in P. B. Khet Mazdoor Samity's case (supra) has laid down that Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance and failure on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21. It is also laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment that it is well settled that adequate compensation can be awarded by the Court for such violation by way of redress in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
8. In the light of above and our conclusion that there has been negligence and lapses on the part of jail authorities in providing adequate, effective, proper and immediate treatment to the deceased resulting in his death, we are of the considered opinion that compensation has to be awarded in favour of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the background of the deceased, as also other circumstances, we are of the opinion that compensation of Rs. 50,000/- be awarded to the petitioner. The compensation shall be paid by the State to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. The compensation payable to the petitioner be deposited in the Court within four weeks. The State is free to apportion the compensation awarded to the petitioner amongst the jail authorities including doctors in the manner deemed fit and recover the same from the persons who are responsible for the lapses and for not providing proper, adequate, effective and immediate treatment to the deceased who died on account of lack of proper, effective, adequate and immediate treatment. The record which was sealed and opened today shall be re-sealed and kept along with the record. Register No. 32 and the under trial register be returned back today to the jail authorities. It will be appropriate that fee of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was appointed as amicus curiae, which is fixed at Rs. 1,500/- be paid by the State and the same be also deposited in the Court within a period of four weeks.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Steno copy duly authenticated be given to parties.