Manohar Singh vs Union Of India And Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 4906 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: 25.10.2013

+      W.P.(C) No.3340/2012 and CM No.11875/2013

       MANOHAR SINGH                              ..... Petitioner

                         Through:Mr.Om Prakash Gupta, Advocate

                         versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR                     ..... Respondents

                         Through:Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate for the
                         respondent/UOI.

                         Ms.Ferida Satawawala with Mr.Omar
                         Siddiqui, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner before this Court came to attend a hearing before

this Court on 7th September, 2011. According to him, when he was

standing in the queue for issuance of a pass, a bomb exploded near

Gates No.4 & 5 of the High Court building, as a result of which he was

seriously injured and was taken to Dr.RML hospital. According to the

petitioner, he was operated upon and foreign bodies were removed from

his right leg. Vide its order dated 14th September, 2011 passed in

WP(C) No.6686/2011, Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India &

Ors., a Division Bench of this Court, directed payment of compensation

to the victims of the bomb blast which took place on 7 th September,

2011 in the following manner:-

"Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the legal representatives of the deceased persons should be extended the benefit of Rs.10 lakhs each, which shall be equally shared by the Union of India and Government of NCT of Delhi; the victims who have suffered permanent disability, they shall be paid Rs.10 lakhs each; the persons who have been grievously injured, shall be extended the benefit of Rs.3 lakhs each and the people who have suffered minor injuries shall be given Rs.20,000/- each.

Where we have used the terms permanent disability/permanently incapacitated, for the present purpose, would also include any person who has lost any limbs. As far as the grievous injury is concerned, as we have been apprised, the time of healing has been taken into consideration."

2. The respondents treated the injury received by the petitioner in

the aforesaid bomb blast to be `minor' in nature and paid him

compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Later on, an additional sum of

Rs.10,000/- was paid to the petitioner considering the aforesaid decision

of the Division Bench in view and the amount paid to him as

compensation was thereby enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner

sought review of the decision taken by the respondent with respect to

the aforesaid ex gratia payment but, the representation yielded no

results. Being aggrieved by the decision of the doctors treating his

injury to be simple in nature, the petitioner is before this Court seeking

the following prayer:-

"i) Issue writ/order directing the respondent to pay ex-gratia/compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs to the petitioner.

ii) Issue writ/order directing the respondent to reimburse the medical and other expenses incurred by the petitioner.

iii) Award the cost of the case/writ.

iv) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. When this writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on

27.2.2013, the petitioner was directed to appear before the

Superintendent of Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital who was to detail a

doctor with the requisite speciality to ascertain as to whether the injury

suffered by the petitioner, having regard to the duration of the healing

could be classified as a grievous injury. Pursuant to the said direction,

the petitioner was re-examined by the doctors of Dr.RML Hospital.

Even after fresh evaluation, the doctors opined that the injury sustained

by the petitioner was a simple injury.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the

Division Bench had recorded the submissions of the respondent that as

regards grievous injury, the time of healing had been taken into

consideration, such time was not considered in his case. He submits that

though the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital and was

discharged from there after 3 days, the wounds sustained took as many

as one month and 5 days to heal.

5. A perusal of the OPD Registration Card of the petitioner would

show that he was examined by the doctor on 21 st March, 2012. The

wound of the petitioner was opined to be healthy and he was advised to

apply Efatop-PE cream locally on his wound. Vide letter dated 11 th

April, 2012, the doctor of RML Hospital informed the petitioner that as

per the comments of treating doctors, the clinical examination,

occupational therapy assessment and plastic surgery opinion revealed a

healed scar(R) calf with good function of knee, ankle and ambulant

patient which according to the medical jurisprudence falls in the

category of `simple injury'. A perusal of the letter dated 10 th April,

2013 sent by RML Hospital to the concerned SDM, with a copy

endorsed to the petitioner, would show that the following was the

observation made by the Medical Board with respect to the injury

sustained by the petitioner:-

"Mr.Manohar Singh sustained soft tissue injury to the right calf, for which he was admitted to this hospital. There was no associated bony or neurovascular injury. He was discharged from hospital after two days and was asked to follow up for dressings on outpatient basis. Mr Manohar Singh turned up at regular intervals to the outpatient department of the hospital for follow up.

In our opinion the injury sustained by Mr.Manohar Singh was a `Simple Injury'."

6. It would, thus, be seen that while giving opinion with respect to

the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner, the doctors of RML

Hospital have considered only the extent of the injury sustained by him

and the period spent by him in the hospital but they have not taken into

consideration the actual time taken for healing the wound.

7. In my view, considering the statement made before the Division

Bench of this Court on 21st September, 2011, it was incumbent upon the

respondent to take the time of healing also into consideration, for the

purpose of deciding whether the injury sustained by the petitioner in the

bomb blast, which took place on 7th September, 2011, can be said to be

grievous injury or not. Since the aforesaid period was not considered by

the doctors of RML hospital and their report was based only on the

nature of the wound sustained by the petitioner, it would be necessary

for the respondents to take a fresh look on the nature of the injury

sustained by the petitioner in the light of the time taken for healing of

the said wound.

8. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the

Medical Superintendent of Dr.RML Hospital to set up a fresh panel of

three doctors, including a doctor from Neurological Department of the

said hospital to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the time

taken for healing of wounds and then decide whether considering the

extent of the wound, time taken for its healing and other attendant

circumstances, the injury sustained by the petitioner can be said to be a

grievous injury or not. The petitioner shall be entitled to place all the

relevant papers pertaining to his treatment before the aforesaid Board

which shall be set up within two weeks from today. A fresh decision by

the Medical Board with respect to the extent of the injury sustained by

the petitioner shall be taken within two weeks thereafter. In case the

injury sustained by the petitioner is opined to be grievous, he shall be

paid ex gratia which the respondents had agreed to pay to those bomb

blast victims who had sustained grievous injury. In case the petitioner is

aggrieved from the decision so taken by the Medical Board of RML

Hospital, he shall be entitled to avail such remedy as is available to him,

in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the

Court Master.

V.K. JAIN, J

October 25, 2013 ks