Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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