Contributory negligence on the part of the school leading to the death of a student and the application of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to ascertain the facts.

JUDGMENT

1. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client lost his son, who died when he was in school. By the writ petition his client has sought compensation. On earlier occasion Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate, Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India had submitted, Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned but petitioner did not turn up to receive the same.

2. Mr. Sahoo, submits, the boy suffered injury and died. He refers to information obtained by writing dated 19th June, 2012, on query made under Right to Information Act, 2005, disclosed under annexure- 3 at page-10. Treatment status stated therein is extracted and reproduced below.

'The laceration of up lip was stitched by Bhakta Charan Sahoo and treated with required medicines. The prescription has been handed over to the attendant of patient. The treatment hours in P.H.C(N), Konark is approximately 1 1/2 hours. The patient was then referred to Capital Hospital, BBSR due to headache for CT scan.'

(emphasis supplied)

He submits, the scan was not made. There was, therefore, negligence on part of the school.

3. He relies on judgment dated 11th August, 2022 by the first Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) no.7584 of 2014 (Madhav Soren v. State of Odisha and others) and order dated 10th May, 2022 of this Bench in W.P.(C) no.20443 of 2012 (Sanjay Kumar Mohanty and another v. State of Odisha and others), wherein order dated 30th September, 2021 also made by the first Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) no.24882 of 2012, (Jambeswar Naik and another v. State of Odisha and others) was relied upon. All the cases were regarding death of school children, where compensation awarded was Rs.10 lakhs.

4. Mr. Pradhan submits, there was no negligence on part of the school. In the play ground, cricket bat slipped out of hands of a student, who was batting and hit the child, since deceased. It was an accident.

5. In the cases relied upon on behalf of petitioner, the victim children had died. On finding of negligence, State was directed to pay compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-. Here, the school is under the Central Government. Earlier, adjournment was granted for the school to consider its position and issue instructions. Mr. Pradhan submits, additional affidavit has been filed on 11th October, 2022. The affidavit is not in file. He hands up a copy. Relied upon paragraph nos.6 and 7 in the affidavit are extracted and reproduced below.

'6. That as seen from the prescription of PHC Hospital (attached therewith as Annexure-R/1) the treatment was given promptly as prescribed by the doctor when the patient was not recovering, the Doctor referred the patient to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for further treatment, the patient was immediately shifted to Bhubaneswar duly escorted by the staff of the School by road at a distance of about 66-70Kms.

7. That the allegation of the Petitioner has already been denied in para-12 of the Counter Reply with the submissions that during the treatment the doctor on duty PHC Konark prescribed 5 days medicines. As the patient was stable, no swelling and no head injury, but in the night when the condition of the patient was marked deteriorating, the doctor was again consulted and on his advice given on prescription, the patient was immediately taken to Hospital at Bhubaneswar for further treatment. As evident from the prescription, the Doctor at PHC Konark had neither told us nor advised for CT Scan (copy of prescription attached with Counter Reply as Annexure R/1). Hence, it is expected that the petitioner had managed & procured the modified status of treatment after 7 months under RTI Act from the office of PHC Konark as the original prescriptions of treatment were handed over to the relatives of deceased student at Bhubaneswar on 03.11.2011. The petitioner did not submit the original prescription along with his writ petition. '

(emphasis supplied)

In the counter too there is allegation that the doctor at PHC Konark h