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

2022 Supreme(Ori) 751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.MURALIDHAR C.J., M.S.RAMAN, J.
Sambara Sabar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Others - Opposite Parties
W.P. (C) No.11860 of 2015
Decided On : 03-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Omkar Devdas, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate

The right to health is integral to the right to life under Article 21, necessitating timely and adequate medical care, which was grossly violated in the case of the deceased, leading to her avoidable death.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 21 - National Maternity Benefit Scheme, Janani Suraksha Yojana - Maternal death due to negligence - The court orders the state government to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the family of the deceased as compensation. Enquiry revealed systemic failures in the healthcare system and collective negligence of staff at medical facilities, leading to the avoidable death of a tribal woman. Directions for accountability actions against responsible health workers and a need for a Comprehensive Action Plan for maternal health care improvement are issued. (Paras 33-38)

(B) Right to health - The right to health, forming an integral part of the right to life, was violated in the case of the deceased, who received inadequate medical attention and care during a high-risk pregnancy. The court emphasized that effective implementation of healthcare schemes is crucial for the poor and vulnerable sections of society. (Paras 20, 26-32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, father-in-law of the deceased, claimed that her death was due to medical negligence during her pregnancy. The enquiry found failures in treatment and care provided by medical staff, catastrophic to her health and wellbeing. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The systemic failure of healthcare providers contributed to the avoidable death of the deceased. Comprehensive measures and accountability steps were deemed necessary to avoid future tragedies. (Paras 24, 38)

Issues: The main issues include the alleged medical negligence leading to maternal death and the implementation of health schemes for vulnerable populations. (Paras 5, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of timely and adequate medical care violated the deceased's right to health under Article 21, necessitating compensation and systemic reforms in healthcare delivery. (Paras 32-34)

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for compensation and reform measures.

Table of Content
1. avoidable maternal death due to negligence (Para 1 , 2)
2. disputed facts regarding negligence (Para 3)
3. lack of treatment directly linked to death (Para 6 , 7)
4. questionable conduct of medical staff (Para 8 , 11)
5. systemic failures of health care (Para 20 , 21)
6. failure of welfare schemes (Para 24 , 25)
7. compensation for avoidable death (Para 33 , 34)
8. action against negligent health workers (Para 35 , 36)
9. development of a comprehensive action plan (Para 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, C.J.

1. Aggrieved by the avoidable ‘maternal death’ of his daughter-in- law Martha Sabar, who died after delivering a dead female child, the Petitioner has approached this Court with the present petition praying inter alia for the appointment of a Maternal Death Review Board comprised of independent members and for this Court to thereafter direct payment of compensation by the State. The Petitioner has also prayed for disbursal to the family of the deceased, her financial entitlements under the National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS). General directions are also sought for the proper implementation of the various schemes of the central and state government including the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) in the village Labanyagada, Gajapati District, where the Petitioner resides and in the whole of Odisha.

2. Enclosed with the petition is the enquiry report of Dr. P.L.N. Patro, the Additional District Medical Officer (ADMO), FW, Gajapati which concluded that there was no medical negligence at any stage in the treatment of deceased. It was opined therein that the cause of death may be “due to severe sepsis with pulmonary embolism”. Enclosed with the petition is also the report of an independent fact-finding enquiry undertaken by a human rights organization, which has come to the opposite conclusion after interviewing those involved and examining the available records.

3. On 17th May, 2022 this Court passed the following order in this petition:

“1. The present petition is by the father-in-law of an unfortunate woman, who not only lost her baby due to an intra uterine death but herself died while receiving treatment on 25th March, 2015.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the death of the baby as well as the woman was due to medical negligence and was avoidable. The pleadings in the present petition present disputed questions of fact with the Opposite Parties claiming that there was no medical negligence.

3. The Opposite Parties appear to have conducted an enquiry into the maternal death of the woman in question. The enquiry report of the ADMO (FW), Gajapati dated 10th April, 2015 is enclosed with the petition.

4. With a view to obtaining an objective assessment of the materials on record the Court requests the State Commission for Women, Odisha (SCWO) to assist it in the task. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:

(i) A complete set of papers will be made available by the Registry of this Court to the Secretary, SCWO, Toshali Plaza, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar not later than 1st June, 2022;

(ii) The SCWO will constitute an appropriate enquiry team to examine the papers and also visit and record statements of the Petitioner and his family members, the concerned treating doctors, the place of treatment, the medical case record and make an assessment as to the veracity of the claims of either party on the basis of the materials gathered. The SCWO can also take the assistance of a qualified medical professional for making its assessment.

(iii) The report of the SCWO pursuant to the above directions be made available to this Court not later than 1st July 2022.

5. As far as the connected matters are concerned, wherever replies/counter affidavits have not yet been filed they be filed positively one week prior to the next date with copies to learned counsel for the Petitioner, who is permitted to file a rejoinder thereto before the next date.

6. List on 1st August, 2022 along with the connected cases listed today. A copy of this order

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