Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Awards ₹1.54 Crores to HIV-Positive Air Force Officer for Medical Negligence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court of India has awarded ₹1.54 crores in compensation to a former Indian Air Force (IAF) officer who contracted HIV due to medical negligence. The judgment, delivered on September 26, 2023, emphasizes the importance of upholding the dignity and honour of armed forces personnel and calls for effective implementation of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017.

The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, underscored the duty of state functionaries, including the armed forces, to maintain the highest standards of safety, well-being, and medical fitness for personnel. The court expressed concern over the lack of dignity, honour, and compassion displayed in the appellant's treatment, stating that no amount of monetary compensation can fully restore the harm caused by such behaviour.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, while delivering the judgment, remarked, "People sign up to join the armed forces with considerable enthusiasm and a sense of patriotic duty... Any flagging from these standards...entails a loss of confidence in the personnel, undermines their morale, and injects a sense of bitterness and despair."

The appellant, an HIV-positive former IAF officer, had sought compensation for medical negligence that led to his condition. The court found the respondents, including the IAF and the Indian Army, vicariously liable for the negligence and jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Justice Dipankar Datta explained, "The appellant is entitled to compensation, calculated at ₹1,54,73,000/- towards compensation on account of medical negligence of the respondents, who are held liable for the injury suffered by the appellant."

Furthermore, the judgment issued comprehensive directions to the Central and State Governments for the effective implementation of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017. These directions include providing diagnostic facilities, treatment, welfare schemes, property protection, information and education programs, and safe working environments for HIV-positive individuals.

The court emphasized the need for a compassionate and timely response to the medical needs of the appellant, who requires ongoing care due to his HIV-positive condition. It directed the respondents to extend full cooperation to the appellant for his future medical treatment and bimonthly medical check-ups.

The Supreme Court also acknowledged the valuable assistance provided by the amicus, Ms. Meenakshi Arora (Senior Advocate), and the persistence of the appellant in seeking justice. It awarded costs of ₹5,00,000/- to the appellant and an honorarium of ₹50,000/- to the amicus, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, who compiled the paper-book.

This landmark judgment not only recognizes the rights and dignity of individuals living with HIV but also sends a powerful message about the responsibilities of state functionaries, especially in the context of the armed forces, to uphold the welfare and honor of their personnel.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2023

CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.) vs COMMANDING OFFICER & ORS.     

Latest Legal News