HC flays authorities on "inaction" on septuagenarian's plea

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Nov 11 2016 | 3:07 PM IST
Coming down heavily on authorities, the Madras High Court has directed the Health Secretary to consider the case of a 75-year-old man who lost his eyesight allegedly due to negligence of doctors and staff of the Egmore Government Ophthalmic Hospital, and award suitable compensation.
The court in its order last week found fault with authorities with the way they have treated the elderly man's representation seeking suitable compensation.
"Every time the petitioner's representation was forwarded to one authority or another, the petitioner has been following it by personally visiting them and requesting them to take a decision on his request," the court said.
"The inaction on the part of the authorities in giving a reply to the representation from the year 2009 onwards amounts to clear dereliction of the duty on the part of all the authorities," it said.
It directed the Health Secretary to appoint a suitable officer to probe the cause of delay by respective authorities in giving a reply to the petitioner's representation which was given to the Chief Minister's Cell on June 2, 2009.
"The inquiry should be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and a copy of the report should also be marked to the petitioner."
The court said the petitioner has been unnecessarily forced to file a petition by engaging a private counsel and incurring legal fees and expenses for obtaining a direction to respondents to perform the ordinary duties of their office.
"If the representation is not disposed of within a reasonable time, by a government authority, the Authority who has contributed to the delay is answerable to the same. Taking into consideration, the various responsibilities of a government servant, the reasonable time to consider any representation application can be specifically determined as '3 months'," the court said.
The court said the petitioner has not been furnished till date information about the name of doctors who performed the surgery. "Even this information has not been furnished by the Superintendent of the Eye Hospital to the petitioner till date. This fact should also be taken into account by the Health Secretary..."
".... If the Health Secretary is of the view that there is a prima facie negligence on the part of any doctor/hospital staff, necessary action should be initiated against them," the court said.
The petitioner had lost his eye sight in an operation that was performed on December 27, 2007.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Nov 11 2016 | 3:07 PM IST

Next Story