Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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