SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Nurjahan Sultana W/o Salim Ali – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4798 of 2017
Decided On : 11-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.K. Chakma
For the Respondent: B. Gogoi

IMPORTANT POINT
No negligence established; compensation denied for maternal death.

Headnote:

(A) Constitutional Law - Compensation for maternal death - Directions sought for nutritional support and compensation for maternal death - Court finds no case of negligence established for entitlement of compensation - Petitioner's mother admitted and treated as per protocol, but expired due to unforeseen medical complications - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 3, 7, 8)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Chakma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Health and Family Welfare Department of Assam.

2. The petitioner who is a minor presently is represented by her grandmother. In the instant writ petition, certain directions have been sought for which are as follows:

    (i) To issue a direction for a constitution of a Committee of doctors including a pediatrician and a dietitian for charting out a nutritious dietary plan for the petitioner for the next two years.

    (ii) To issue direction for making provisions of the nutritional requirements of the petitioner free of cost by the respondent No. 1 at least for the next two years in accordance to the dietary plan and charted out.

    (iii) To issue direction for payment of compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and her family for the maternal death of the petitioner's mother and the failure of the State Public Health System to protect her and the trauma caused to the petitioner and her family.

3. It is relevant to take note of that the first two directions so sought for have already become infructuous taking into account the passage of time. However, the question arises as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to any compensation as has been sought for in the writ petition.

4. For deciding the above aspect, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the affidavits filed by both the respondent No. 5 as well as the respondent No. 2. In the said affidavits filed by the respondents, it has been mentioned that the petitioner's mother was admitted at 10:30 AM on 10.04.16 by hospital monthly S. No. 86. During that time, all findings were normal except mild hypertension. After getting all necessary care and treatment to the petitioner's mother during the morning hours, she was prepared for conducting the normal delivery. In the afternoon, the Medical Officer examined the case and delivered a healthy baby at 1:10 PM without any untoward incident and the baby was handed over to the mother and she was shifted to the Post-Natal Ward. In the Post-Natal Ward, normal regular immediate post-natal checkup were done according to the protocol and the petitioner’s mother was found to be stable. At around 3:30 PM, the petitioner’s mother complained about sudden convulsion and then as per medical protocol, resuscitation was done but the petitioner’s mother did not regain consciousness and it was decided to send the petitioner’s mother to the nearest higher centre that is the Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College & Hospital (FAAMCH) for better evaluation and treatment. The Government ambulance was contacted. However, at that very point of time, the Government ambulance was busy with another patient. Under such circumstances, the attendants of the petitioner’s mother took a decision to hire a private ambulance. It was also mentioned that after resuscitation the patient's vitals were stabilized for referral fitness and then shifted to FAAMCH.

5. It is further seen from the affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 who is the Superintendent of the FAAMCH wherein it was mentioned that the patient upon being referred to the hospital on 10.04.2016 was admitted at 4:42 PM. Thereupon, diagnosis was carried out and it was found to be a case of suspected cerebrovasculare accident with severe anemia. It was also mentioned that various necessary possible measures were taken and necessary treatment was also given to her, but in spite of all efforts to revive, the petitioner’s mother expired at 7:45 PM on 10.04.2016 in the hospital.

6. It is further relevant to take note of that these affidavits were filed on 13.05.2023 and 29.11.2023. There has been no affidavit-in-reply filed thereafter inspite of various opportunities.

7. Under such circumstances, on the basis of the materials on record, it cannot be said that a case of negligence has been made out for entitlement of compensation.

8. Consi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top