Disposed

Krishan Kumar Gurjar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/946/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking direction for medical appraisal of eye condition resulting in fitness dispute. Court directed Respondents to constitute Review Medical Board at Army R&R Hospital to consider both old and new reports.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to constitute Review Medical Board at Army R&R Hospital for reconsideration of petitioner's fitness based on submitted reports.

Krishan Kumar Gurjar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~7.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 946/2016

¶4

KRISHAN KUMAR GURJAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Rohan Gupta, Mr. S.S. Rai, Mr. Nirvikar Verma, Advocates and SG CDR Anand (Navy).

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R % 11.03.2016

¶9

On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner may be permitted to approach Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to obtain a medical certificate from an Eye Specialist to the effect that he does not suffer from Extra Ocular Muscle Paresis . The petitioner was directed to approach the aforesaid Hospital for a fresh assessment of his eye condition with a direction that the diagnosis made by the respondents, as recorded on 17.08.2015, shall be produced by him before the Eye Specialist for his perusal and his report shall indicate that the said diagnosis has been perused. 2. Today, counsel for the petitioner hands over a Diagnosis report dated 14.09.2015, from Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences

¶10

W.P.(C) 946/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶11

AIIMS, New Delhi, which does not indicate that the diagnosis made by the respondents, as recorded on 17.08.2015 was perused by the concerned Eye Specialist. The said report simply states “No Manifest Strabismus, no extraocular muscle paresis”.

¶12

Counsel for the respondents submits that the report dated 17.08.2015 in respect of the petitioner prepared at INS Chilka had referred to the deficiency, namely, “left lateral rectus paresis”, due to which the petitioner had been declared unfit. He submits that this aspect does not find any mention on the first page of the report dated 14.09.2015 handed over by the counsel for the petitioner, nor does the follow up that was undertaken on 03.03.2016 as noted on the second page, indicate so.

¶13

The terminology used in the follow up report dated 03.03.2016 being technical in nature, we are not in a position to correlate the same with the diagnosis of the petitioner as recorded in the earlier report dated 17.08.2015. In such circumstances, the respondents are directed to approach the Commandant, Army R&R Hospital, at Delhi with a request that a Review Medical Board be conducted in respect of the petitioner relating to his eye condition. The petitioner shall be intimated of the date and time on which he shall be required to present himself. The same shall be communicated to the petitioner through counsel within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall appear on the assigned date and time with all the relevant records. The respondents shall also ensure that the petitioner’s diagnosis dated 17.08.2015 and the report dated 14.09.2015 prepared by the Senior Resident at AIIMS are placed before the Review Medical Board for their perusal. The Review Medical Board shall forward its opinion directly to the respondents, who shall furnish a copy thereof to the petitioner.

¶14

W.P.(C) 946/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall be bound by the report that shall be submitted by the Army R&R Hospital, which shall be final.

¶16

The petition is disposed of.

¶17

It is clarified that the order passed above shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case as the same has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶18

HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 11, 2016
rkb

¶19

W.P.(C) 946/2016 Page 3 of 3

Krishan Kumar Gurjar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar Gurjar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.P. Sharma Vs M/S Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

Mount Carmel School Society Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sushma Arora Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs UOI & Ors.

Des Raj Arora & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amarjit Singh & Anr. Vs Gautam & Ors.

Amrit Kumari Vs Asst. Housing Commissioner & Ors.

Jayant Sahai Vs Land Deveopment Officer

Ramesh Kumar Vs UOI & Ors.

Balram Meena Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ankur Sangwan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mahipal Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex.Hav Laljeet Singh Vs the Chief of Army Staff N.D. &

B.N.Mishra Vs UOI & Ors.