The court emphasized the necessity for educational institutions to provide adequate medical facilities and first aid, ruling that reliance on ad-hoc responses to medical emergencies is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service.

2. This petition involves an individual tragedy and raises significant concerns regarding the availability and adequacy of first aid and medical facilities in the educational Institutes in the State.

3. Petitioner’s daughter Tejuswini was a final-year diploma student at Respondent No.4, Polytechnic College in Kandivali, Mumbai. She had good academic record and actively participated in extracurricular activities. On 22 February 2016, Tejuswini collapsed in her classroom, hit her head against the benches and lost consciousness. She was brought down from the 6th floor in a wheelchair and taken to nearby hospitals, where she passed away due to a haemorrhage.

4. The Petitioner has filed this petition alleging negligence on the part of Respondent No. 4 in the Polytechnic College where Tejuswini was enrolled and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the hospitals where she was admitted. She alleges that the College lacked adequate medical facilities, including an ambulance, and that there was an unacceptable delay in transporting her daughter to the hospital. The Petitioner further asserts that timely medical treatment could have saved her daughter’s life. The Petitioner seeks a direction for stringent action against Respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6 for medical negligence and requests these Respondents to provide compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to the Petitioner for the death of her daughter.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent college argued that all reasonable measures within the capacity of the College to prevent the unfortunate incident were undertaken. The College argued that Tejuswini had pre-existing health conditions, suggesting that her death could not solely be attributed to the actions or omissions of the College. The College disputed the allegation of negligence by its employees. Additionally, the Respondent college has submitted that under the Mandatory Student Insurance Policy, an insurance company disbursed Rs. 50,000 to the Petitioner-mother. Also, the College incurred Rs. 1,30,000 towards the hospital expenses for the deceased and refunded all fees paid by the Petitioner-mother for the three-year duration. The Respondent College has placed on record the proceedings taken out by the Petitioner before the Human Rights Commission, Maharashtra.

6. The Petitioner had initiated proceedings before the Human Rights Commission, Maharashtra making the same grievance. The Commission held that there was no evidence of failure on the part of any Respondents in providing proper treatment to the deceased. It was noted that Tejuswini suffered a stroke and was promptly taken to the nearest hospital within 20 minutes, and the Human Rights Commission concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the Respondent College.

7. In writ jurisdiction it is not possible for us to adjudicate on the seriously disputed factual issues as to whether the deceased had preexisting conditions and to what extent it was the role of the Respondents and to grant relief of damages. The claim falls in the realm of tort law. The Petitioner's claim for action and damages is negatived.

8. However, the petition has also raised a larger issue. The Petitioner has sought a direction for Respondent No. 1, the Principal Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education Department; Respondent No. 2, the Principal Secretary of the Education Department; and Respondent No. 3, the Director of the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, to issue directives to the respective Government Education Departments to ensure adequate medical facilities and equipment are available in colleges and schools. Having recorded that these prayers justified further consideration, we called upon the State to respond to these prayers by order dated 22 April 2024. Considering the importance of the issue we called upon the learned Government Pleader to appear and assist the Court. We also requested Mr. Jaydeep