Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

RESERVED ON : 25th AUGUST, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 21st DECEMBER, 2015 JUDGEMENT [PER JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM] :-

1 By this petition, the petitioner is attributing direct negligence on the part of the respondents regarding the performance of respondents' duties, which, according to the petitioner was the proximate cause for losing the fingers of his right hand.

Gauri Gaekwad 2 WP-431-2003 The petitioner, therefore, is praying for (a) direction to the respondents to take action against the employees, agents and doctors responsible for the condition of the petitioner, (b) direction to the respondents to provide to the petitioner employment and

Gauri Gaekwad 6 WP-431-2003 6 Article 21 of the Constitution gives a person his most cherished right, viz., right to life which includes right to live with human dignity. The public law remedies have also been extended to the realm of tort. The Apex Court, in its various decisions has entertained petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution on a number of occasions and has awarded compensation to the petitioners who had suffered personal injuries at the hands of the officers of the government. The causing of injuries, which amounted tortuous act, was compensated by the Apex Court in many of its decisions beginning from 1Rudulsah vs. State of Bihar. In cases relating to custodial deaths and those relating to medical negligence, the Apex Court awarded compensation under the public law domain. The courts have rejected the contentions that the petitioner should have approached the Civil Court for damages and the matter should not have been considered in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. (2Chairman, Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das) 7 It is, therefore, settled law that the court in exercise of extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can award damages against public authorities. The courts, however, award damages only if it can be established that there was direct negligence on the part of the public authority and that was a 1 (1983) 4 SCC 141 2 2000 (2) SCC 465 Gauri Gaekwad 7 WP-431-2003 proximate cause for the injury or death of the victim and not in every case like if there was a minor infraction of public duty. In 3Rabindra Nath Ghosal Vs. University of Calcutta & Ors., the Apex court held as under :-

9 Therefore, we need to see whether there was direct negligence on the part of the respondents which was the proximate cause for the petitioner losing the fingers of his right hand.

10 In the affidavit in reply filed by Vikramaditya B. Shukla affirmed on 7th March, 2003, on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the injection Mannitol is known to cause osmotic injury and Phenytoin an irritant injury on extravasation, i.e., if the intravenous fluids flow out of the vein. If the petitioner was being administered Gauri Gaekwad 9 WP-431-2003 drugs which may have the effect of causing gangrene if they do not go properly into the vein, there is no explanation as to why care was not taken by the treating doctors and nurses to see that the medicines were not administered intraveins. It appears from the report and the case paper of the petitioner, which is also placed on record, that the drugs were not going into the vein as they were supposed to and that was noticed only on the next date, i.e., 2nd October, 2002.