Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, Airport Authority of India (AAI), seeking recovery of ₹22,78,368/- incurred on the medical treatment of his deceased stepson and a further sum of ₹5,00,000/- as compensation for his tragic demise. The gravamen of the Plaintiff's claim is that the Defendant was grossly negligent in its duty by failing to process his application to include his terminally ill stepson as a dependent for a period of nine months, which he alleges directly led to the denial of timely medical aid and caused the ensuing financial loss and death. The Defendant, while admitting its policy covers step-children, has vehemently contested the suit, contending that the delay was not due to any negligence on its part but was entirely attributable to the Plaintiff's own failure to provide complete, consistent, and verifiable documentation to establish the identity of the child, thereby justifying its inaction.

b. On the merits of the case, the Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and places the entire onus for the non-enrollment of the stepson on the Plaintiff. The Defendant avers that at the time of his joining AAI on June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff did not deem it proper to inform the office that he was married to a divorced woman with a male child, namely "Master Ishmeet Singh @ Sukh." It is alleged that the Plaintiff failed to submit any relevant documents to this effect, as is evident from his Attestation Forms.

c. The Defendant contends that it was only on March 5, 2021, that the Plaintiff submitted some "illegible documents". Upon scrutiny, these documents allegedly revealed the facts of the Plaintiff's marriage and his stepson. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff created confusion by seeking to enroll a "Master Sarthak" while the divorce decree named the child "Master Ishmeet Singh @ Sukh." The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff should have declared the child as his stepson (rather than his own son) and should have provided a Gazette Notification for the change in name, which was never done.

b. Concealment of "stepson" status at the time of joining: The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff wrongly declared his stepson as his "son." Again, DW-1 admitted in his cross-

examination that the attestation forms do not have separate, specific columns to distinguish between a "son" and a "step son." While the Plaintiff could have been more precise, describing a stepson he has raised as his "son" in a form that lacks specificity cannot be elevated to the level of a malicious concealment, particularly when the Defendant's own regulations (Ex. PW-1/8) afford them equal status for medical benefits.