Author- Parinita Mahesh Salaskar, New Law College, Matunga, Mumbai

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

A serious incidence of carelessness in a government-run hospital that resulted in a newborn child’s irreversible disability is highlighted by the 1995 case Jasbir Kaur and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others. On June 25, 1993, the petitioner, Jasbir Kaur, gave birth to a healthy boy after being hospitalized at Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital in Amritsar due to a difficult delivery. The youngster allegedly suffered significant injuries, including the loss of an eye, after being attacked by a cat on hospital grounds due to insufficient facilities and suspected incompetence.

The petitioners requested compensation for the child’s upbringing and rehabilitation as well as an investigation into the occurrence. The hospital administration blamed the event on the family’s carelessness and denied any involvement. Nonetheless, the court examined the duty of care given by public hospitals by using tort law and constitutional grounds. In addition to compensating victims of systemic error, this case emphasizes the State’s duty to maintain safety and dignity in public institutions.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

• The parents thought their child had been switched with another child who had an eye injury, so they called the police. They went to Smt. Vimla Dang, M.L.A. from Amritsar, looked into the situation and encouraged the authorities to take action when nothing was done. A case was filed and looked into, but nothing came of it.
• As a result, the parents asked the court to send the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate whether their child was switched or whether a cat was responsible for the damage. Additionally, they requested that the court order the hospital to enhance its offerings and safeguard children. As an alternative, they demanded ₹10 lakhs in damages for the hospital’s carelessness and negligence.

Factual Background of the Case

• On June 24, 1993, the child’s mother, Jasbir Kaur, was very ill and admitted to Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital in Amritsar. On June 25, 1993, Dr. Harinder Kaur performed sonography and a cesarean section on her, and at 6:00 p.m., a healthy baby boy was born.
• Babies from lower-income households were not given a separate cradle at the hospital. The infant was put with a relative that night after the family was advised not to allow the mother and child to sleep together because of the risk of infection. The baby disappeared during a sudden power outage in the maternity hospital but was later discovered bleeding profusely and with one eye gouged out entirely next to a bathroom washbasin.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• What legal remedies are available to the petitioners if their rights are found to have been violated?
• Were the fundamental rights of the petitioners, as guaranteed under the Constitution, violated by the actions of the State?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pleaded before us the helplessness of the petitioners in pursuing the matter any further by getting an inquiry conducted through the Central Bureau of Investigation.
• The petitioners, on account of their poverty, argued the learned counsel, apprehend that further proceedings or inquiry in the case may not deprive them even of the child who is being brought up by them at present.
• It is further submitted that the handicapped child may ultimately grow with the impression of being a stranger child to the family if the petitioners fail to get any child in exchange.
• It is submitted that on account of their social status, poverty, and the delay caused in the case, the petitioners may not be in a position to substantiate the allegations so far as the exchange or replacement of the child is concerned. Relief for banding over the case to the Centra] Bureau of Investigation for further investigation is, therefore, neither insisted nor granted.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Respondent submitted that a preliminary inquiry was conducted in which it is stated to have been established that the incident had occurred due to the negligence of the family members of the newly born child.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Article 21of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and property except according to the procedure established by law.
• The rule of res ipsa loquitur in reality belongs to the law of Torts. Where negligence is in issue, the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or accident, in a particular case, may themselves proclaim in concordant, clear, and unambiguous voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of the event or accident.

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

• Ensuring the safety, protection, and care of patients and their infants is a legal and ethical obligation for the State and its staff when running a public hospital. Any negligence on the part of the State that results in injury is considered negligence.
• Article 21’s right to life encompasses more than just survival; it also covers the right to a dignified existence. This fundamental right is violated when a public institution’s negligence results in harm, and the state is required to pay the victims.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Despite the petitioners’ demand for ₹10 lakhs in compensation, the court determined that considering the permanent nature of the harm, ₹1 lakh would be a reasonable sum for the child’s education and upbringing. This sum will contribute to securing the child’s future and a decent position in society. The petitioners must deposit the ₹1 lakh that the respondents are compelled to pay them as a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. When the child reaches adulthood, the deposit will mature and become payable to them. In the meantime, if the parents remain together, the interest gained on the sum will be used on a regular basis for the child’s upkeep. If they split up, the court will give more instructions to make sure the child gets the money.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

• Supreme Court of India in Sayad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, 1980 Acc CJ 38 : (AIR 1979 SC 1848) (Para 19)

Important Statutes Referred

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India

“The case invokes Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court emphasized that “life” extends beyond mere existence to include the dignity and security of individuals.”

• Maxim: Res Ipsa Loquitur

The principle was applied to establish that negligence on the part of the hospital staff could be presumed because the incident occurred under circumstances that would not ordinarily happen without negligence.

• Tort Law

The case heavily relied on the principles of tort law, particularly negligence, to attribute liability to the hospital for the injury caused to the child.

Judicial Precedents

• Reference to Sayad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980 Acc CJ 38; AIR 1979 SC 1848), where the Supreme Court explained the applicability of the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur.