Public can sue govt officials for inaction
Mahendra Kumar Gupta
NEW DELHI: Paving the way for making public servants accountable if they fail to perform their duties, a city court has stated that people can seek damages on account of their "inaction". Currently, no law exists under which government employees can be prosecuted or held liable for inaction. The move of seeking such damages, a first in the country except in defamation cases, if put to use effectively is likely to make public servants more responsible.
"Failure to act is an actionable wrong as much as any malafide action by such public servant for which the aggrieved person can seek damages for all the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, social and financial loss and sufferings caused to him. For this, a public servant would be liable in his personal capacity," Additional District Judge Kamini Lau said.
The judge noted that the general impression about personnel manning public institutions not performing and getting away with it needs to change. "It is this malaise which ails public institutions. Today that needs to be taken care of. It is time that public servants, particularly officers of the government, police, corporations, municipal bodies, etc, are made to answer for the inconvenience, trauma and loss caused to the public due to their failure to act on time and to make them liable for such inaction," the court said.
The court was hearing a civil suit filed by head constable Satish Chand against four other cops, including an inspector and an additional sub-inspector, who allegedly did not register an FIR on his complaint and instead booked him in a false case under Section 107/151 CrPC for breach of peace. Chand sued the four cops and sought a compensation of Rs 1 lakh on grounds of defamation and loss of reputation. His plea, however, was dismissed by a trial court so he appealed before the district court.
On June 2, 2004, the four cops refused to take action on Chand's complaint saying that his minor son was beaten up by some boys. In his plea, he said that instead of inquiring into the matter the cops started beating him and booked him in a false case in which he was later discharged.
The district court set aside the trial court order and marked the matter to a senior civil judge. "The claims of those aggrieved by action of public servants cannot be thrown out casually. Unfortunately, in the impugned judgment I find no discussion on some important aspects," it said.
The judge also raised concern in the manner senior officials of Delhi Police treat their juniors, observing that "it needs to be checked." "Merely because the appellant is a junior functionary in the same force, it does not mean that his dignity and self respect or his self esteem/ reputation can be trampled," the judge said.
REJIMON C K
Good one
How can we get a copy of the order?
Send by Wireless Device
--
Membership Application- Please visit...
http://www.dwarkaforum.org/self-support/
We are on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Dwarkaforum
DWARKA FORUM (Regd) www.dwarkaforum.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DWARKA FORUM (Regd)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dwarka-residen...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Mahendra Kumar Gupta
Shri Manish Sisodia, Dy. Chief Minister,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Delhi-110002.
Date: 29.8.2015.
Sub: Demand for the removal of Dr. Girish Tyagi, Registrar, Delhi Medical Council for adopting unfair means, not taking cognisance of the written submissions by the complainants to save the doctors accused of medical negligence and professional misconduct.
Respected Manish ji,
The Delhi Medical Council has registered a complaint (number 1275/2014) against the Safdarjung Hospital for not giving treatment records in January, 2014. Two more complaints of medical negligence and professional misconduct numbering 1275/2014 and 1309/2014 were also registered by the Council against the CGHS Maternity and Gynae Hospital, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. All the three complaints were heard on 26.6.2015 and 07.07.2015 after lot of follow-up with the Council to dispose these complaints expeditiously. On the complaint against the Safdarjung Hospital, We, patient, her husband and father, have personally delivered written submissions in five copies marked for the concerned doctor on 22.6.15. During the second hearing held on 07.07.15, we requested 15-day time to submit our additional written submissions on these complaints as we have received lot of information, after lodging the initial complaints in Jan, 2014 in replies to the RTI applications etc. and during the hearing, our requested was acceded to. Accordingly, we have personally delivered to the Council, written submissions about the Safdarjung Hospital on 17.07.15 and on the Maternity and Gynae Hospital on 20.07.15. Copies of written submissions were also personally delivered to both the hospitals on 20.7.2015 and the copies of the aforesaid submissions in regard to Safdarjung Hospital are appended as Annexure-1 and 2 whereas copy of written submissions about M&G Hospital is Annexed as Annexure 3.
3. We received the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Council dated 30.7.15 in the first week of August, 15 and our shock and dismay, we found that that the Disciplinary Committee has not taken into account these submissions and has exonerating the accused doctors of both the hospitals just by directing the Safdarjung Hospital to give the treatment record in LAMA Cases also. Copy of the Decision is appended as Annexure 4.
4. Shri M.K. Gupta, father of the patient Preeti, filed an RTI application on 6.8.15 to know the day to day movement and file notings of these submissions, the Council instead of giving straight reply, asked him to inspect the file. The Registrar-cum-PIO in his reply to para 5 of the RTI application admitted that these submissions were not sent to the opposite parties i.e. Safdarjung and M&G Hospital. When I asked about the file notings and day to day movement about these submissions, I am told to come to the Council Office on 3.9.15 to inspect the file. From this, the intention of the Registrar of saving the accused doctors is evident.
On inspection of file by my father, Shri M K Gupta, he found ……….
5. From the above, it is evident that Dr. Girish Tyagi, Registrar of the Delhi Medical Council has committed impropriety, delinquent in performing his duties and misused his position by not forwarding these submissions to the Hospitals and Disciplinary Committee for which he was duty bound.
6. That though as per regulations, the complaint should be heard within 6 months, it took more than one and half year to conduct the hearing that too after lot of follow-up, letters to different authorities including to the Health Minister, Delhi.
7. In a recent judgment published in TOI dated 28.8.15, Additional District Judge, Kamini Lau hearing an appeal of Satish Chand against the order of the trial court said, "Failure to act is an actionable wrong as much as any malafide action by such public servant for which the aggrieved person can seek damages for all the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, social and financial loss and sufferings caused to him. For this, a public servant would be liable in his personal capacity,"
8. On the personnel manning the public institutions not performing, Court said, "It is this malaise which ails public institutions. Today that needs to be taken care of. It is time that public servants, particularly officers of the government, police, corporations, municipal bodies, etc, are made to answer for the inconvenience, trauma and loss caused to the public due to their failure to act on time and to make them liable for such inaction," adding, "The claims of those aggrieved by action of public servants cannot be thrown out casually. Unfortunately, in the impugned judgment I find no discussion on some important aspects," (Copy enclosed) (link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Public-can-sue-govt-officials-for-inaction/articleshow/48702978.cms).
9. We, therefore, demand to order an inquiry against Dr. Tyagi in the interest of public for getting fair decisions on the complaints of medical negligence and professional misconduct. The actions of the Registrar appear unfair, bias, malafide as he has been in impediment in the way of fair trials by showing undue favours to the accused doctors. If an inquiry is conducted, we are ready to give evidence before the Committee to prove the charges levelled by us.
With Best Regards,
Yours faithfully,
Arun Banerjee
REJIMON C K
After submitting
Pls post a copy on pgms
U will find some results
Send by Wireless Device
Mahendra Kumar Gupta
Mahendra Kumar Gupta
REJIMON C K
http://pgms.delhi.gov.in/home1.aspx