Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.53 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
In the present case there was
breach of the said right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under
Article 21 when he was denied treatment at the various
Government hospitals which were approached even though his
condition was very serious at that time and he was in need
of immediate medical attention. Since the said denial of the
right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 was by
officers of the State in hospitals run by the State the
State cannot avoid its responsibility for such denial of the
constitutional right of Hakim Seikh. In respect of
deprivation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution the position 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. [See : Rudal Sah
v. State of Bihar, 1983 (3) SCR 508 Nilabati Behara v. State
of Orissa.
Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1989
In Pt. Paramanand Katara vs. Union of India & Ors.,
1989 (4) SCC 286. this Court in the context of medico-legal
cases. has emphasized the need for rendering immediate
medical aid to injured persons to preserve life and the
obligations of the State as well as doctors in that regard.
This petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
raises this issue in the context of availability of
facilities in Government-hospitals for treatment of persons
sustaining serious injuries.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Consumer Education & Research Centre ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 January, 1995
1993 (2) SCC 746: Consumer Education and Research
Centre v. Union of India, 1995 (3) SCC 42]. Hakim Seikh
should, therefore, be suitably compensated for the breach of
his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we
fix the amount of such compensation at Rs. 25,000/-. A sum
of Rs. 15,000/- was directed to be paid to Hakim Seikh as
interim compensation under the orders of this Court dated
April 22, 1994. The balance amount should be paid by
respondent No. 1 to Hakim Seikh within one month.
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983
In the present case there was
breach of the said right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under
Article 21 when he was denied treatment at the various
Government hospitals which were approached even though his
condition was very serious at that time and he was in need
of immediate medical attention. Since the said denial of the
right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 was by
officers of the State in hospitals run by the State the
State cannot avoid its responsibility for such denial of the
constitutional right of Hakim Seikh. In respect of
deprivation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution the position 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. [See : Rudal Sah
v. State of Bihar, 1983 (3) SCR 508 Nilabati Behara v. State
of Orissa.
Management Of Rashtradoot, Jaipur vs Rajasthan Working Journalist Union And ... on 22 September, 1969
In view of the said decision the only question which
needs to be considered is whether the non-availability of
facilities for treatment of the serious injuries sustained
by Hakim Seikh in the various Government hospitals in
Calcutta has resulted in denial of his fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
1