Kerala High Court
Regional Cancer Centre vs Kerala State Human Rights Commission on 15 October, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13671 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:
REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRETOR, PAUL SEBATIAN, POST BOX NO2417,
MEDICAL COLLEGE, CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695011
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.C. 11/53-1, TURBO PLUS
TOWER, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
2 MRS. ANITHASURENDRAN
WIDOW OF LATE V.S. SURENDRAN, VALLIKKAKUZHI VEEDU, AZHAKAMM
P.O, MOOKKANNOOR, ERNAKULAM 683577
BY ADVS.
SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS
SHRI.M.V.ANANDAN
SHRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SRI.MANU GOVIND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.10.2025,
THE COURT ON 15.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13671 OF 2014
-:2:-
2025:KER:76186
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.13671/2014
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The scope and jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission
under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, is the question to
be decided in this matter.
2. One Mr. Surendran was admitted to the Regional Cancer
Centre, Thiruvanthapuram, (hereinafter referred to as 'RCC') for
bone marrow cancer treatment. Surendran committed suicide by
jumping out of a window of the RCC. The duty nurse who was
attending Surendran was asked by him to get hot water. While the
duty nurse was away, Surendran jumped from his room on the fourth
floor of RCC. Consequent upon the impact of his body hitting the
ground, he sustained internal injury and died instantaneously. A
WP(C) NO. 13671 OF 2014
2025:KER:76186
complaint was lodged by Mrs. Anitha Surendran before the Kerala
State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
'Human Rights Commission') in the year 2013. Surendran left behind
two minor girls who were studying in the 9th standard and the 2nd
standard in the year 2013. The Human Rights Commission
recommended the Government to pay a compensation of Rs.
1,00,000. This is questioned by RCC in the writ petition.
3. The reason for awarding compensation by the Human Rights
Commission is that the RCC was under a duty to erect grills on the
windows to prevent any attempt of suicide. It is also found that the
duty nurse ought not to have left Surendran alone in the room, and
she could have asked any attendant to fetch water for Surendran.
4. We find that the order of the Human Rights Commission is
legally unsustainable. Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993 defines Human Rights as follows:
"2(1)(d). "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and
dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the
International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India."
5. Human rights available to individuals are derived from
WP(C) NO. 13671 OF 2014
2025:KER:76186
collective rights or group rights. A mere negligence cannot even be
considered as a human rights violation for the reason that such
negligence is attributable to individuals and arises out of peculiar
circumstances. No doubt that a failure to provide medical treatment
or failure to attend to a patient would qualify as a violation of human
rights. However, merely because the RCC did not provide grills for
the window does not amount to a violation of human rights. It is also
to be noted that the mere absence of the duty nurse at the relevant
time would also not fall within the meaning of a human rights
violation. The point to be considered in such a matter is whether any
omission or commission on the part of the State resulted in violating
the rights of the individuals. If an individual decides to put an end to
his life and is not influenced by any action attributable to the State,
that will not entail a person to proceed against the State for violation
of human rights. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order.
6. During the course of the hearing, we had directed the
District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Ernakulam, to submit a
report. The report of DLSA is on board. It depicts the pathetic
condition of the family of late Surendran. It is submitted that the
WP(C) NO. 13671 OF 2014
2025:KER:76186
second respondent, Mrs. Anitha Surendran, is earning a livelihood by
the sale of nutmegs planted on 16 cents of land and the widow
pension received from the Government.
Taking note of the above, we direct the Kerala State Legal
Services Authority to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
only) to Mrs. Anitha Surendran, from the cost fund specifically
ordered through the direction of this Court to meet such
eventualities. The amount shall be paid as and when the cost fund is
received pursuant to any direction from the judicial side. The amount
shall be transferred to Mrs. Anitha Surendran, the wife of late
Surendran, directly through DLSA, Ernakulam, in the bank account
maintained by her.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
ms
WP(C) NO. 13671 OF 2014
2025:KER:76186
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13671/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO 1407/2013 OF
MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM
DATED 19-08-2013
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT IN CRIME
NO 1407/13 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DATED 19-08-2013
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO 1407/13 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DATED 10-09-2013
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FILED BY 2ND REPSONDENT
BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 12-09-2013
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO 2440/MED.
SUPDT/2013/RCC FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01-
11-2013 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONALSTATEMENT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST
RESPONDENTDATED 31-12-2013 IN HRMP NO 6322/2013/P
&/EKM
EXHIBIT P7 TRUIE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE
SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL OFPETITIONER BEFORE THE
IST RESPONDENT DATED 18-02-2014 IN HRMP NO
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST
RESPONDENT IN HRMP NO 6322/2013 DATED 29-01-2014
