A.S.Mittal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

Factual and Procedural Background

The proceeding is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution, filed as a public interest litigation by the General Secretary and the Convener of the Union for Welfare and Human Rights. The petition concerns an eye camp organised by Lions Club, Pottery Town, Khurja (Respondent No. 4) on 21 April 1986 at Aggarwal Dharamshala, Novelty Road, Khurja, Uttar Pradesh.

The camp took place during unusually high heat (about 44°C in the afternoon). Dr. Sahai (Respondent No. 2), an eye specialist from Jaipur, Rajasthan, headed the team that conducted operations. Permission from the Chief Medical Officer had been obtained. A total of 108 cataract patients were treated; it is stated that 84 persons lost their eyesight. Allegations include that Respondent No. 2 conducted another eye camp at Moradabad on the same day and that there was non-supervision, lack of post-operative care, negligence, and non-compliance with permission terms.

A magisterial inquiry and a departmental inquiry by the Government of Uttar Pradesh were conducted, and both reports form part of the record. The Medical Council was notified in the proceedings, and Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit. The court adjourned the matter for further hearing on 15/09/1987, noting that the matter required greater examination and potentially scrutiny of norms governing eye camps. In the interim, the court issued directions regarding compensation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether interim compensation should be directed for patients who allegedly lost eyesight following cataract operations at the eye camp.
2. Whether further compensation should be awarded and whether liability for compensation (present or future) should be shared with any other party (to be examined at the later hearing).
3. Whether the norms governing the conduct of eye camps are adequate and complied with (identified as requiring detailed examination at the later hearing).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recorded that the matter required fuller examination and that norms relating to holding eye camps might need close scrutiny to assess adequacy. Accordingly, the court adjourned the petition for a later date.

Noting that 84 patients had lost their eyes, the court granted interim relief by ordering the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay interim compensation of Rs. 5,000 to each affected patient within one month. The court also directed the filing of an affidavit by the end of the fifth week to confirm compliance. The court expressly left open for consideration at the subsequent hearing the questions of further compensation and whether liability should be shared with any other party.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM COMPENSATION ORDERED AND MATTER ADJOURNED.

The State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as interim compensation to each of the 84 affected patients within one month, and to file an affidavit indicating compliance by the end of the fifth week. The court adjourned the matter to 15/09/1987 for more detailed consideration, including whether additional compensation should be awarded and whether compensation liability should be shared with any other party. The order, as provided, does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond these interim directions.