Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

India, High Court of Orissa, 23 March 2022, W.P. (C) PIL No. 17152 of 2021

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
India
Case ID
W.P. (C) PIL No. 17152 of 2021
Decision date
23 March 2022
Deciding body (English)
High Court of Orissa
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Constitutional Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld

Case analisys

General Summary

The Court in the present instance is dealing with the violation of the right to health of the victims guaranteed and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court has held liable a State-run medical facility for medical negligence which caused the death of two COVID-19 patients. The Court ordered for the payment of ex-gratia and compensation to the victims and their families. The Court ordered compensation of Rs. 5lakhs and another 50,000 to be paid to the victims.

Facts of the case

A Petition was filed via a letter with the Orissa High Court, highlighting the health crisis and the mismanagement of COVID-19 in western Orissa. Attention was drawn to the alleged lack of proper medical facilities and irresponsible behavior of the medical professionals and authorities at a state-run facility while treating COVID-19 victims. In line with these allegations, an inquiry committee was formed to submit its report.

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Compensation sought for damages caused due to the violation of right to health under Article 21
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court held that no person can be denied an adequate standard of medical care in Government health institutions. The excuse of lack of resources is not accepted. The Court found that the primary duty of a welfare state is to provide adequate medical facilities.

In the present case, the claim for compensation is for the violation of the fundamental rights of the two victims and is fully supported by the previous decisions of the Supreme Court of India.

In a welfare state, the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare state. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty-bound to extend medical assistance in the preservation of human life. Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide a timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in the violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The claim of the Petitioners was upheld.

With the facts having been objectively established, the Court awarded compensation for the deaths of two COVID-19 victims on account of medical negligence. The compensation amount as recommended by the Inquiry Authority of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the next of kin of each of the said two deceased appears reasonable. The Court accordingly ordered the State of Odisha to compensate the families of the two victims the sum of Rs.5lakhs each which should be apart from the ex-gratia sum of Rs.50,000/- which would also become payable. Additionally, the Court ordered that the ex-gratia payments of Rs.50,000 be made for all twelve victims for whom the affidavits were given to the Inquiry Authority.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
  • Right to life
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Art. 21, Indian Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health (public) v. access to health services
General principle applied
Reasonableness
Authors of the case note
  • Dr. Tania Sebastian, Assistant Professor, VITSOL, VIT, Chennai
  • Vishnupriya R. , Undergraduate Student, VITSOL, VIT, Chennai
Case identified by
VITSOL, VIT Chennai Research Team
Published by Laura Piva on 17 November 2022

More cases from India

  • India, High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench, 27 January 2021, PIL No. 25 of 2020
    Area: Public health and access to healthcare (not Covid-related diseases)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Bombay, 22 February 2022, Public Interest Litigation No. 84 and 85 of 2021
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to good administration
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Delhi, 25 May 2022, W.P.(C) No. 308/2022
    Area: Procedural law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to access to justice, to a fair trial and to jury trial
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Madras, 15 March 2022, Crl. OP No. 5999 of 2022
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Patna, 31 March 2022, WP(C) 19063 of 2021
    Area: Education
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to education
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Bombay, 29 March 2022, Writ Petition No. 2873 of 2021
    Area: Freedom to conduct a business
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from India

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. India, High Court of Orissa, 23 March 2022, W.P. (C) PIL No. 17152 of 2021
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies