E-Paper
Orissa HC says negligence led to prisoner’s death, orders ₹20 lakh compensation
A bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy on Tuesday said the jail authorities failed to provide adequate medical treatment to him despite knowing he had chronic diabetes
The Orissa high court has ordered ₹20 lakh compensation for the widow of an undertrial prisoner, who died in custody, underlining that such deaths due to medical negligence represent a serious violation of constitutional rights and warrant appropriate compensation.
A bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy on Tuesday said the jail authorities failed to provide adequate medical treatment to him despite knowing he had chronic diabetes. It added that by the time the prisoner was shifted to a better medical facility, his health condition had deteriorated.
The court said the petitioner Sabita Nishank’s claim for compensation on grounds of negligence by jail authorities was well proven. It added that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution’s Article 21, particularly for prisoners deprived of personal liberty and completely dependent on jail authorities for medical care.
Nishank moved the court seeking ₹50 lakh compensation for the death of her husband, a panchayat executive officer. He was remanded to custody in September 2016 after being booked under the Indian Penal Code sections, including 409 (criminal breach of trust).
Nishank petition said her husband had suffered from chronic diabetes since 2008, and the jail authorities knew about it. It added that he was denied proper treatment. His health deteriorated, prompting his wife to move an application before a magistrate in January 2017, requesting proper medical treatment.
The high court noted that the jail authorities took action only after the petitioner’s intervention. By the time the undertrial was transferred to the district hospital, his condition had deteriorated. He was subsequently referred to a Cuttack hospital but died the following day while undergoing treatment. The petitioner had to bear the ambulance charges for the transfer.
The high court observed that the jail authorities demonstrated serious laxity in providing adequate medical care. It noted that the prisoner’s blood sugar was checked periodically and some medicines were provided, but the treatment was insufficient given the severity of his chronic condition.
The court emphasised that proper and timely medical intervention could have prevented his death. It said that the prisoner’s condition deteriorated to such an extent that emergency referral became necessary, and by then it was too late to save his life despite the jail authorities’ claim of providing treatment.
