The Bombay High Court has allowed the petition filed by the parents, widow, and children of one deceased-undertrial prisoner who died in custody, for the grant of compensation of Rs.90 Lakhs for loss of life due to the negligence of the jail authority.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anuja Prabhu Dessai observed:
"There has been total negligence and lapse on the part of the jail authorities in providing adequate, effective and proper medical treatment and on the part of the police guard on duty who declined to shift the deceased."
It was the petitioner's claim that the deceased was suffering from spondylosis and severe pain. It is alleged that since he was not provided medical treatment, he filed an application before the Magistrate to shift him to Government Hospital. The said application was dismissed with observations that the Superintendent of Jail is able to take proper care of and provide medical facilities to the deceased.
It was alleged that the deceased was not given any treatment despite his request at an initial stage and it was only after his condition deteriorated that he was shifted to Government Hospital. It was further stated that since the condition of the deceased was critical, the doctor at Government Hospital had advised shifting the deceased to another hospital.
The deceased was not shifted to Government Medical College, Aurangabad, and the concerned Police Constable made an endorsement that he is not able to shift the deceased and will have no complaint in case of any untoward incident/ risk to the life of the deceased.
Subsequently, the deceased expired on 27/2/2012 and the petitioners claimed the death of the deceased Pratap was due to the callous and negligent attitude of the jail authority.
The Superintendent of Police, Beed has filed his affidavit-in-reply wherein he has denied that the deceased died due to negligence of the jail or State authority. He stated that at the time of admission of the deceased in jail, he had stated that he did not have any ailment.
Learned A.P.P. submitted that though the doctors regularly visited the jail, the deceased had not complained to the doctor or the jail authorities about his ailment. He was shifted to the hospital immediately after he complained of ill health and was given the necessary medical treatment and the jail authorities cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased.
He stated that there were three inquiries including a magisterial inquiry, C.I.D. as well inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission, and that all the authorities have recorded a finding that it is not a case of custodial death due to ill-treatment.
The Court, having gone through the record and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties wen on to conclude that it was total callous and insensitive mindset of the police authorities as well as the jail authorities.
"The contentions of the learned A.P.P. that the deceased Pratap ought to have approached the doctor and narrated about his sickness cannot be accepted. As noted above, the deceased who was an undertrial prisoner, had approached the Magistrate and had complained about ill-health. The jail authorities were, therefore, well aware that the deceased was having some sort of ailment. Having opposed the application on the ground that all the facilities were available in the jail, it was the duty of the Superintendent of Jail and all the other concerned to ensure that necessary medical facility was provided to the deceased Pratap. The records further reveal that, even after the deceased was shifted to the hospital, the doctor on duty had informed the on-duty Constable that the patient had to be shifted to Government Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad. The said Constable from Headquarters, Beed had made an endorsement that for some reason, he is unable to shift the accused to Government Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad and that they would have no grievance if the life of the deceased Pratap was in danger. This endorsement itself reflects total callous and insensitive mindset of the police authorities as well as the jail authorities."
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments