Gauhati High Court
Nurjahan Sultana vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 11 November, 2024
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010034232017
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4798/2017
NURJAHAN SULTANA
REPRESENTED BY HER GRANDMOTHER, HAMSA BIBI, W/O. SALIM ALI,
R/O. DAISINGARI VILLAGE, BARPETA DISTRICT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, HEALTH and FAMILY WELFARE A DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
781006, ASSAM.
2:THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM.
3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
JAYA NAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
4:MEDICAL OFFICER
PATHSALA SUB-DIVISIONAL HOSPITAL
ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/6
5:SUPERINTENDENT
FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED MEDICAL COLLEGE and HOSPITAL
BARPETA
ASSAM.
6:THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY
DEPTT. OF PANCHAYAT and RURAL DEVELOPMENT
'C' BLOCK
2ND FLOOR
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-78006.
7:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE
GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Chakma, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. B. Gogoi, SC, Health
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2024
Date of Judgment : 11.11.2024
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. K. Chakma, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel
appears on behalf of the Health and Family Welfare Department
Page No.# 3/6
of Assam.
2. The petitioner who is a minor presently is represented by
her grandmother. In the instant writ petition, certain directions
have been sought for which are as follows:-
(i) To issue a direction for a constitution of a Committee of
doctors including a pediatrician and a dietitian for charting
out a nutritious dietary plan for the petitioner for the next
two years;
(ii) To issue direction for making provisions of the nutritional
requirements of the petitioner free of cost by the
respondent No.1 at least for the next two years in
accordance to the dietary plan and charted out; and
(iii) To issue direction for payment of compensation of an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and her family for
the maternal death of the petitioner's mother and the
failure of the State Public Health System to protect her and
the trauma caused to the petitioner and her family.
3. It is relevant to take note of that the first two directions so
sought for have already become infructuous taking into account
the passage of time. However, the question arises as to whether
the petitioner would be entitled to any compensation as has
been sought for in the writ petition.
Page No.# 4/6
4. For deciding the above aspect, this Court finds it relevant to
take note of the affidavits filed by both the respondent No.5 as
well as the respondent No.2. In the said affidavits filed by the
respondents, it has been mentioned that the petitioner's mother
was admitted at 10:30 AM on 10.04.16 by hospital monthly Sl.
No.86. During that time, all findings were normal except mild
hypertension. After getting all necessary care and treatment to
the petitioner's mother during the morning hours, she was
prepared for conducting the normal delivery. In the afternoon,
the Medical Officer examined the case and delivered a healthy
baby at 1:10 PM without any untoward incident and the baby
was handed over to the mother and she was shifted to the Post-
Natal Ward. In the Post-Natal Ward, normal regular immediate
post-natal checkup were done according to the protocol and the
petitioner's mother was found to be stable. At around 3:30 PM,
the petitioner's mother complained about sudden convulsion and
then as per medical protocol, resuscitation was done but the
petitioner's mother did not regain consciousness and it was
decided to send the petitioner's mother to the nearest higher
centre that is the Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College &
Hospital (FAAMCH) for better evaluation and treatment. The
Government ambulance was contacted. However, at that very
point of time, the Government ambulance was busy with another
Page No.# 5/6
patient. Under such circumstances, the attendants of the
petitioner's mother took a decision to hire a private ambulance.
It was also mentioned that after resuscitation the patient's vitals
were stabilized for referral fitness and then shifted to FAAMCH.
5. It is further seen from the affidavit filed by respondent No.5
who is the Superintendent of the FAAMCH wherein it was
mentioned that the patient upon being referred to the hospital
on 10.04.2016 was admitted at 4:42 PM. Thereupon, diagnosis
was carried out and it was found to be a case of suspected
cerebrovasculare accident with severe anemia. It was also
mentioned that various necessary possible measures were taken
and necessary treatment was also given to her, but in spite of all
efforts to revive, the petitioner's mother expired at 7:45 PM on
10.04.2016 in the hospital.
6. It is further relevant to take note of that these affidavits
were filed on 13.05.2023 and 29.11.2023. There has been no
affidavit-in-reply filed thereafter inspite of various opportunities.
7. Under such circumstances, on the basis of the materials on
record, it cannot be said that a case of negligence has been
made out for entitlement of compensation.
8. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner cannot be granted compensation on account of
Page No.# 6/6
Constitutional tort on the basis of the materials on record.
9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
