Orissa High Court

Nabaghana Nayak vs State Of Orissa And Others on 28 January, 2021

          ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

                 W.P.(C) No. 2953 of 2013

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
                          ----------

Nabaghana Nayak                            .........         Petitioner

                             -versus-

State of Orissa and others                 .........        Opp. Parties

For Petitioner : M/s. S. Mohanty, A.P. Rath, S.K. Barik, S.S. Mohapatra and P.K. Das, Advocates

For Opp.Parties : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate (O.Ps. No.1 to 2)

M/s. B.P. Tripathy, D.Pradhan and G.S. Das, Advocates (O.P. No.3)

Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty (Senior Advocate) along with M/s. D.Mohanty, S.Mohanty, D.Varadwaj, S.Mohanty and A.Mohanty, Advocates (O.P. NO.4)

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI

Date of hearing : 21.01.2021 : Date of judgment: 28.01.2021

DR. B.R.SARANGI, J. The petitioner, who is a farmer living

below the poverty line, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this

Court seeking compensation for the loss of his eyesight due to

defective surgery conducted in the eye camp organized by

Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre,

Ostapur, Kendrapara.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that

the petitioner, having faced some problem in his eye,

contacted opposite party no.3, who detected that the

petitioner was suffering from cataract which was to be

operated. The petitioner, being canvassed by Basanta Kumari

Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara,

was selected to undergo cataract surgery at their eye camp,

which was scheduled to be held at Gopabandhu Club,

Marshaghai on 25.09.2011. As per their advice, the petitioner

remained present on the date fixed (25.09.2011) and

undergone surgery for cataract and he also took certain

medicines and injections. On the next day, the post operation

check up was undertaken by the doctor, before whom the

petitioner complained loss of his eyesight and he was advised

for further check up on 02.10.2011. On that date, though the

complaint was persisting, but the same was not taken care of

by the doctor concerned and the petitioner was advised to

have a follow up check up to be done on 13.10.2011. On the

said date, no doctor came for check up, but only nursing staff

of the hospital concluded check up and they could not solve

the problem of the petitioner with regard to loss of eyesight, in

spite of repeated report by him. As a result, he sustained a

severe post operative pain in his right eye.

2.1 Finding no other alternative, the petitioner

rushed to JPM Rotary Eye Hospital & Research Institute on

14.10.2011 for check up. As per their advice, the petitioner

again visited the said hospital on 20.10.2011 and was

admitted as an indoor patient for his eye treatment. He was

undergone surgery on 28.10.2011 and discharged on

29.10.2011. The discharge summery report would indicate

that the petitioner sustained retinal detachment vitreous

haemorrhage and the said operation was costly one. The

review check up was made on different dates by JPM Rotary

Eye Hospital, but despite the best efforts of the doctor the

eyesight of the petitioner could not develop and finally the

same was lost due to negligent and defective operation done

by opposite party no.3.

2.2 Consequentially, the petitioner approached the

Chief District Medical Officer, Kendrapara for disability

certificate and after thorough scrutiny and maintaining the

formalities; he was issued with a disability certificate granted

by the medical board on 01.06.2012 showing the disability as

60% and the category of visual handicapped. The Sarapanch

of Marshaghai Gram Panchayat has also issued a certificate to

the petitioner with regard to his poor financial condition and

BPL category, as well as loss of his eyesight due to defective

operation undertaken by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital

& Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara. The petitioner

though issued a lawyer's notice to the Chief Organizer of

Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre,

Ostapur, Kendrapara for defective operation undertaken by

him, but received no reply. Therefore, claiming for

compensation, the petitioner has approached this Court by

filing the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Millan Kumar, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, learned counsel for the

petitioner vehemently contended that loss of eyesight of the

petitioner was due to defective surgery undertaken by Basanta

Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur,

Kendrapara, which has caused grave hardship to him, as the

same has not only changed his lifestyle but also severely

affected his livelihood. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to

get compensation for the damages caused to him due to

defective surgery undertaken by opposite party no.3. In

support of his contention, he has relied upon judgments of

this Court in The Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court,

Cuttack v. State of Orissa, 2011 (I) OLR 443 and Sri Prabir

Kumar Das, Advocate & Human Rights Activist v.

Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Deptt., Govt. of

Orissa, Bhubaneswar and others, 2012 (II) OLR 81.

4. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government

Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties no.1 and 2,

referring to the counter affidavit filed on their behalf on

18.09.2014, contended that Basanta Kumari Rural Eye

Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara is a

registered organization under Odisha Clinical Establishment

(Control & Regulation) Rules, 2017 and the said organization

is authorized to perform cataract surgery in Kendrapara

district fulfilling all the criteria as laid down by the

Government. Accordingly, opposite party no.3 has entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the CDMO,

Kendrapara-opposite party no.2 on 19.05.2011 for the

activities of prevention of blindness control programme. As per

the terms and conditions laid down in clause-4(e) & (f) of that

MoU, the NGO Hospital, namely, Basanta Kumari Rural Eye

Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara agreed to be

responsible for post operative care including management of

complications, if any, and post-operative counseling regarding

use of glasses and also follow up services care including

refraction & provision of glasses, if required, providing best

possible correction. It is also further stated, as per the

guidelines issued by the Government of India, in clause-12(b)

it is clearly mentioned that the NGO Hospital is solely

responsible for guarantying quality & efficient services based

on programme's technical & operational norms. As the

cataract operation in the eye of the petitioner was undertaken

by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre,

Ostapur, Kendrapara on 25.09.2011, thereby opposite party

no.3 is only responsible for post-operative care. It is also

further contended that the petitioner has not reported before

the Eye Specialist of District Headquarters Hospital,

Kendrapara nor to opposite party no.2 for his post-operative

complications, if any. Thereby, it is contended that neither

opposite party no.1 nor opposite party no.2 is liable for

payment of any compensation for the loss of eyesight of the

petitioner due to surgery done by Basanta Kumari Rural Eye

Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara.

5. Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior

Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Varadwaj, learned

counsel for opposite party no.4 contended that the petitioner

having undergone surgery for cataract on 25.09.2011 in the

camp of opposite party no.3, on the next day he complained

loss of eyesight and sustained severe post-operative pain in his

right eye and after 19 days of surgery the petitioner came to

JPM Rotary Eye Hospital-opposite party no.4 for check up

complaining of pain and low vision. On examination it was

detected that the petitioner had a very low vision with very low

intraocular pressure (4mm of Hg.). On indirect

ophthalmoscopy he had a total retiral detachment with

vitreous haemorrhage with large retinal tear which might have

occurred during injection for local anesthesia for cataract

surgery. Therefore, the petitioner was advised by opposite

party no.4-hospital for vitreoretinal surgery under very poor

visual prognosis and the same was also explained to him.

Opposite party no.4 also explained the petitioner that the

doctors are just trying to revive the vision which may not be

successful as eye is grossly injured. After understanding the

same, the petitioner agreed for vitreoretinal surgery, for which

he underwent surgery on 28.10.2011 and was discharged on

29.10.2011. The petitioner's vision could not be revived in

spite of best efforts of the doctors. It is only the misfortune of

the petitioner, for which the operation undertaken by opposite

party no.4 could not be successful. In any case, the damages

already caused to the petitioner could not be retrieved even by

conducting the second operation and, as such, no negligence

having been committed by opposite party no.4, the petitioner

is not entitled to get any compensation from the said opposite

party.

6. Though learned counsel Mr. B.P. Tripathy and

associates have entered appearance for opposite party no.3 by

filing vakalatnama on 02.09.2013 and in the meantime more

than seven years have passed, but no counter affidavit has

been filed rebutting the allegations made by the petitioner in

the writ application against the said opposite party nor

anybody is present from the side of the said opposite party at

the time of hearing. Thereby, applying the doctrine of non-

traverse, this Court proceeded with the hearing of the matter.

7. This Court heard Mr. Millan Kumar, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Mohanty, learned

counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl.

Government Advocate appearing for opposite parties no.1 and

2; and Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel

appearing along with Mr. D. Varadwaj, learned counsel for

opposite party no.4 through virtual mode. On the basis of the

pleadings available on record, since it is an old case of the year

2013, this Court heard the matter and disposed of the same at

the stage of admission without granting any further

adjournment.

8. The facts delineated above are not in dispute.

The petitioner, who is a farmer and a BPL card holder, faced

with eye problem and being persuaded by opposite party no.3

undergone surgery in the eye camp organized by Basanta

Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur,

Kendrapara on 25.09.2011. On the next day, as per advice of

the doctor, he had gone for routine checkup, where he

complained loss of his eyesight. On the basis of advice given

by the doctor, though he was administered certain medicine,

but he could not get any relief nor subsequently was he

attended by the doctor who had conducted surgery on his eye.

As his pain was increased day by day, finding no other

alternative he proceeded to JPM, Rotary Eye Hospital, CDA,

Cuttack, where he underwent second surgery with an

anticipation that his vision would revive. But as damage had

already caused to the eyesight of the petitioner to a higher

extent, even on corrective surgery made for second time by

JPM, Rotary Eye Hospital, the defect in his eye could not be

recovered. Consequentially, the petitioner lost his eyesight and

on being examined by opposite party no.2, the medical board

issued a disability certificate of 60% of loss of eyesight in the

category of visual impaired. Loss of eyesight has a significant

impact on the lives of those who experience it as well as on

their families, their friends, and society. Such a loss has been

caused to the petitioner for the remaining part of his life,

which cannot be appropriately assessed or compensated in

any form whatsoever. But interest of justice would apparently

be served if an endeavour is made at this stage to award some

compensation, as a solace to the petitioner that a wrongdoer

has been penalized.

9. Even though it is a very onerous job to quantity

the exact amount of compensation for loss of eyesight, but

before entering into the arena of such a question, this Court

deems it proper to explain what "compensation" means. As per

Oxford Dictionary, the word "compensation" signifies that

which is given recompense, an equivalent rendered damages,

on the other hand, constitute the sum of money claimed or

adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury

sustained, the value estimated in money, or something loss or

withheld.

10. The expression "compensation" ordinarily used

as an equivalent to damages, although compensation may

often have to be measured by the same rule as damage in an

action for the breach.

11. In Houghton Main Colliery Co. Ltd. In Re,

(1956) 3 All ER 300, the apex Court held that the word

"compensation" signifies that which is given in recompense an

equivalent rendered-damages, on the other hand, constitute

the sum of money claimed, or adjudged to be paid as

compensation for loss or injury sustained, the value estimated

in money of something lost or withheld. The term

"compensation" etymologically suggests the image of balancing

one thing against another; as, where there is loss of pension

rights, allowance for income-tax respectively payable in respect

of pension has to be deducted.

12. In State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas,

AIR 1969 SC 634, the apex court held that the expression

"compensation" is not defined in the Constitution. In ordinary

parlance the expression: "Compensation" means anything

given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make

amends for loss recompense, remuneration or pay, it need not

therefore necessarily be in terms of money. The phraseology of

the constitutional provision also indicates that compensation

need not necessarily be in terms of money because it expressly

provides that the law may specify the principles on which, and

the manner in which, compensation is to be determined and

"given". If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression

"paid" would have been more appropriate.

13. In Lucknow Development Authroity v. M.K.

Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787, the apex Court held that according

to dictionary it means, "compensating or being compensated;

thing given as recompense". In legal sense it may constitute

actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical,

mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.

14. In Kiranabala Dandapat v. Secy. Grid

Corporation of Orissa Ltd. AIR 1998 Ori 159, this Court

held as follows:

"'Compensation' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay; it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which compensation is to be determined as given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damified may receive equal value for his loss or be made whole in respect of his injury; something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received recompense for whole injury suffered, remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage or every description. The expression 'compensation' is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to 'damage' although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach."

15. K. Narasimha Murthy v. Manager, Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 1109 (Karnataka), wherein the

Division Bench in an appeal preferred by the claimant under

Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 succinctly laid down

the legal principle after extracting the relevant paras from the

decision of the cases in Admiralty Comrs. V. S.S. Valeria,

(1922) 2 AC 242; Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co., (1880) 5

AC 25; H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504

(HL, England); Ward v. James, (1965) 1 AII ER 563;

Basavaraj v. Shekhar, 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka); Perry v.

Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England); Phgillips v. South

Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406; Fowler v. Grace,

(1970) 114 Sol Jo 193; and (1969) 3 AII ER 1528; and referring

to McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn. in support of the

conclusion for determination of the compensation for personal

injury both for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses in favour

of the injured petitioners, which reads as under:

"(18) Viscount Dunedin in Admiralty Comrs v. S.S. Valeria, (1922) 2 AC 242, has observed thus:

'The true method of expression, I think, is that in calculating damages you are to consider what is the pecuniary consideration which will make good to the sufferer, as far as money can do so, the loss which he has suffered as the natural result of the wrong done to him.'

(19) Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co., (1880) 5 AC 25, has observed thus:

'Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given ...

you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of

money which will put the person who has been injured...in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong.'

(21) Lord Morris in his memorable speech in H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), pointed out this aspect in the following words:

'Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But the money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All the Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.'

(22) In the above case, their Lordships of the House of Lords observed that the bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles plaintiff to the damage and that the amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury. Their Lordships emphasized that in personal injury cases the courts should not award merely token damages but they should grant substantial amount which could be regarded as adequate compensation.

(23) In Wards v. James, (1965) 1 AII ER 563, speaking for the Court of Appeal in England, Lord Denning while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury laid down three basic principles:

'Firstly, assessability: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may

be given in similar cases, otherwise, there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the pubic good.'

(25) In Basavaraj v. Shekhar, 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka), a Division Bench of this Court held:

'If the original position cannot be restored-as indeed in personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously be-the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so 'make good' the damage.'

(26) Therefore, the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the court should award to injured person such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. But, it is manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate an injured man and renew a shattered human frame.

(27) Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), said:

'To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but ... no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment.'

(28) The necessity that the damages should be full and adequate was stressed by the Court of Queen's Bench in Fair v. London and North Western Rly. Co., (1869 21 LT 326. In Ruston v. National Coal Board, (1953) 1 AII ER 314, Singleton, L.J. said;

'Every member of this court is anxious to do all he can to ensure that the damages are adequate for the injury suffered, so far as there can be compensation

for an injury, and to help the parties and others to arrive at a fair and just figure.'

(29) Field, J. in Phillips v. South Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, held:

'You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation, once and for all. He has done no wrong; he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered."

16. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC

1086, the apex Court observed that in appropriate cases, the

Court discharging constitutional duties can pass orders for

payment of money in the nature of compensation. Consequent

upon deprivation of the fundamental right to life and liberty of

a petitioner the State must repair the damage done by its

officers to the petitioner's right.

17. In Kumari v. State of Tamilnadu, 1992 ACJ

283(SC), the apex Court overruling the decision of the High

Court of Tamil Nadu observed that the writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked for awarding

compensation to a victim, who suffered due to negligence of

the State or its functionaries. The same principle has been

reiterated in various judgments of the different High Courts

including this Court and also the apex Court observed that

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High

Court can issue a direction for payment of compensation if

there is deliberate act of negligence on the part of the railway

administration.

This Court, while considering the grant of

compensation in respect of a victim lost her life in an accident

due to negligence on the part of the railway administration,

have decided in Pranabandhu Pradhan & Ors. V. Union of

India & Anr. 2019 (II) ILR-CUT-770.

18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid

principles laid down by the apex Court, various High Courts

including this Court in the matter of awarding compensation

to the victim in a similar nature of case like that of this writ

petition, this Court, entertaining a suo motu PIL registered as

W.P.(C) No. 8228 of 2010 (The Registrar (Judicial), Orissa

High Court, Cuttack v. State of Orissa) issued following

directions:

"5. In the light of the circumstances as recorded hereinabove and based on the enquiry conducted by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Koraput- Jeypore, we dispose of the suo-motu writ petition with the following directions :-

(i) The Government of Orissa in Health and Family Welfare Department is directed to grant compensation a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each in favour of Smt. Nagali Amiamma, Smt.S Gunnamma and Sri Mrutyunjaya Panda for their pain and suffering.

(ii) All the Government hospitals of the State should ensure proper pre-operative assessment of all patients prior to recommending surgery, especially when "Health Camps" are organized to ensure proper evaluation of patients.

(iii) Whenever a health camp is conducted, the doctors of such Government Hospital should ensure that adequate medical personnel are available to conduct such surgery, so that each individual patient is given adequate care. Attempt for achieving huge targets or records should be discouraged and the authorities must ensure that such number of surgeries take place, as is practically possible and permissible. In the present case we find that only one surgeon has carried out on an average 43 cataract operations per day over a period of seven days. Obviously, adequate care could not have been given to each patient as is required and each patient deserves.

(iv) The Journalists/Press Reporters must ensure proper verification of facts, prior to sending the same for publication to their respective news papers/magazines. In the

present case, it is found that Mr. Satyanarayan Pattnaik, Press Reporter of the Times of India had sent his report merely based on oral statements made by a few patients, without any manner attempting to cross check or verify such facts. Further, resorting to headlines, as used in the present case should be avoided and the same be duly toned down keeping in view the public duty it owes to its readers and not to create panic in circumstances which are not warranted."

As per the above directions, all the Government hospitals of

the State were to ensure proper pre-operative assessment of all

patients prior to recommending surgery, especially when

"Health Camps" are organized to ensure proper evaluation of

patients. Whenever a health camp is conducted, the doctors of

such Government Hospital should ensure that adequate

medical personnel are available to conduct such surgery, so

that each individual patient is given adequate care. Attempt

for achieving huge targets or records should be discouraged

and the authorities must ensure that such number of

surgeries take place, as is practically possible and permissible.

In view of such direction given by this Court, being a welfare

State the opposite parties no.1 and 2 owe a responsibility to

carry out the direction given by this Court in its letter and

spirit. Meaning thereby, when Basanta Kumari Rural Eye

Hospital & Research Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara arranged an

eye camp, the State Government hospitals owe a responsibility

to ensure proper pre-operative assessment of all patients prior

to recommending surgery, especially when camps are

organized to ensure proper evaluation of patients. In addition

to that, the doctors of such Government Hospital should

ensure that the adequate medical personnel are available to

conduct such surgery. Nothing has been placed on record by

way of counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no.1 and 2 to

show that they had adhered to the directions given by this

Court, as mentioned above.

19. In Sri Prabir Kumar Das mentioned supra,

this Court, taking note of the judgment of this Court in The

Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack (supra),

has given a specific direction in paragraph-18 thereof, which

reads as under:-

"18. Before parting with the matter, we make the following observations and directions:

(i) After granting permission to any NGO to hold eye camp for cataract operation, the Government must monitor and supervise the entire work of the concerned NGO.

(ii) Necessary guidelines in detail may be issued by the Government for taking up pre- operation and post-operation care.

(iii) Before granting permission to an NGO, the said NGO must ensure that operation in camps must be undertaken by qualified/efficient doctors.

(iv) The patients must not be allowed to leave the camp immediately after operation, wherever the situations so demand.

(v) Before the granting permission, the District Administration must be satisfied that the NGO has adequate infrastructure facilities, equipment and required number of qualified doctors and Assistants to undertake the operation work in the camp keeping in view the number of persons to be operated.

(vi) After operation in the eye camps, good quality sun glass, power glass and required medicines should be provided to the patients.

(vii) In case of failure of the operation because of laches on the part of any NGO and/or Government authority, the suffering patients must be adequately compensated immediately.

These are all necessary to achieve the avowed object enshrined in the Scheme of the Central Government on the basis of which the NGOs are functioning and provided with financial assistance."

20. As it reveals from the pleadings available on

record, Basanta Kumari Rural Eye Hospital & Research

Centre, Ostapur, Kendrapara has not followed the guidelines

and principles set out in the judgment mentioned supra. But

in para-17 of the judgment in Sri Prabir Kumar Das

mentioned supra, this Court directed the State Government to

pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty

thousand) to each of the persons, who had lost their eyesight

fully, and Rs.1,75,000/- (rupees one lakh and seventy five

thousand) to each of the persons who had lost their eyesight

partially, and further directed the State Government to cause

necessary enquiry through an officer not below the rank of