Jagan Lima Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the rejection letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Opposite Party No.4-Tahasildar, Rayagada under Annexure-5 and for a further direction to the Opposite Parties to release the ex-gratia compensation amount as is payable to the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time.

¶21

The factual background leading to filing of the present writ petition in short is that the son of the present Petitioner

¶22

Page 1 of 7.

¶23

was admitted to the District Headquarter Hospital, Rayagada, after he sustained a snake bite. While he was undergoing treatment, the son of the Petitioner died in hospital on 29.08.2019. After the death of the son of the present Petitioner, the Petitioner coming to know about ex-gratia compensation amount that is being paid by the State Authorities, submitted his representation on 02.03.2020. Since the said application for grant of ex-gratia compensation has not been considered, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.38298 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.01.2024 with a direction to the Petitioner to approach the concerned Tahasildar by filing a representation and such representation shall be considered and disposed of by the Opposite Party No.4-Tahasildar, Rayagada, in accordance with law within a period of one month. After disposal of the previous writ petition, the Petitioner has again approached the Tahasildar by filing a representation on 09.01.2024 under Annexure-4 Series. The Opposite Party No.4-Tahasildar, Rayagada, vide his letter dated 27.06.2024 under Annexure-5 has rejected the representation of the Petitioner on the ground that the legible copy of the post mortem report, which is mandatorily required to be filed for processing the claim of ex-gratia compensation as envisaged in letter No.4843 dated 17.08.2019 of OSD-cum-Joint Commissioner Relief, SRC, Government of Odisha, was not submitted for consideration. Further, it has been admitted in

¶24

Page 2 of 7.

¶25

the said letter that although the deceased was treated at the DHH, Rayagada due to snake bite poisoning, however, the Opposite Parties are not supposed to act beyond their jurisdiction. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner for grant of exgratia compensation was rejected. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the cause of the death of the son of the present Petitioner is not disputed. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to some medical documents filed along with the writ petition under Annexure-1 Series, which has been obtained under the provisions of the Right to Informant Act. The Bed Head Ticket of the District Head Quarter’s Hospital, Rayagada, which has been annexed to the writ petition, reveals that the son of the Petitioner was admitted to the hospital on the complain of snake bite. Although he was admitted on 29.08.2019 and it appears that some treatment was done at the District Headquarter, Rayagada, however, eventually the son of the Petitioner succumbed to the snake bite. He also referred to the opinion given by Dr. Suresh Chandra Dey, who was working as a Medicine Specialist at D.H.H., Rayagada under Anneuxre-1 Series to the present writ petition. Further, referring to the said opinion report, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the treating physician has categorically

¶27

Page 3 of 7.

¶28

mentioned that the son of the Petitioner, who was aged about 5 years and 6 months, was admitted in the causality ward of D.H.H., Rayagada, with a complain of snake bite. Thereafter, the patient was attended by the treating doctor. The M.O., who was on emergency duty, diagnosed and admitted the son of the Petitioner as a case of snake bite with low condition. Thereafter immediate treatment was given to the patient and on examination of the Paediatric Specialist, it was dectected that the case is a Neurotoxic Snake Bite Poisoning. While the son of the Petitioner was undergoing treatment at the District Headquarter Hospital, his condition became serious despite their best efforts, the son of the Petitioner could not survive and finally the patient died at 3.15 P.M. on 29.08.2019. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that no post mortem examination was conducted as the case was diagnosed as a Neurotoxic snake bite and the body of the deceased was handed over to his family members to perform his last rituals. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner does not have a post mortem report by the authorities which he is unable to produce.

¶29

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, referring to the rejection letter dated 27.06.2024 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition, submitted that the Opposite Parties have rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner could not produce a legible copy of the post

¶30

Page 4 of 7.

¶31

mortem report. He further contended that for grant of exgratia compensation, a copy of the post mortem report is required to be mandatorily filed for consideration of such claim of the Petitioner. Since the post mortem report could not be produced, the Opposite Party No.4 has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 27.06.2024 under Annexure-5, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful analysis of their submissions as well as the materials which has been annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the claim of the Petitioner for ex-gratia compensation has been rejected vide letter dated 27.06.2024 by the Opposite Party No.4 only on the ground that a legible copy of post mortem report was not produced before the authorities. However, in course of argument, no such rule was produced before this Court which makes it mandatory to file a copy of the post mortem report. Further, examination of the medical examination report, which has been obtained under the Right to Informant Act, clearly reveals that son of the Petitioner died while he was undergoing treatment at D.H.H., Rayagada. The opinion report of the treating physician, which has been filed under Annexure-1 Series to the writ petition, also confirms the aforesaid act. In

¶33

Page 5 of 7.

¶34

view of such medical documents available on record, it cannot be disputed that the son of the Petitioner, namely one Nikhil Lima @ Narendra Lima died due to Neurotoxic Snake Bite Poisoning as has been opined by treating physician, who was none other than a doctor working in the D.H.H., Rayagada. In such view of the mater, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the son of the present Petitioner died due to Neurotoxic Snake Bite Poisoning. Therefore, the insistence of the Opposite Parties for filing of the legible copy of the post mortem report, was uncalled for and the same is not a mandatory requirement as no such rule was cited before this Court to that effect. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of rejection dated 27.06.2024 under Annexure-5 is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, keeping in view the beneficial nature of scheme for grant of compensation to the victim, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.4 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner under the aforesaid scheme without insisting upon the legible copy of the post mortem report. Further, the claim of the Petitioner be processed on the basis of the medical report available on record. If required, the Opposite Party No.4 may call for a report from District Headquarter Hospital with regard to cause of death of the son of the present Petitioner while finalizing the claim of the Petitioner for ex-gratia compensation.

¶35

Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear

¶36

Page 6 of 7.

¶37

before the Opposite Party No.4 along with a copy of this order within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the claim of the Petitioner shall be processed by following the aforesaid observations. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to the ex-gratia compensation as has been claimed by him, the Opposite Parties shall do well to grant such ex-gratia compensation to the Petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. While considering the claim of the Petitioner for grant of ex-gratia compensation, it is open to the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the investigation report, if any, submitted in any pending U.D. Case with regard to the aforesaid incident.

¶38

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶40

Debasis

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 13-Mar-2025 19:20:09

¶43

Page 7 of 7.

Jagan Lima v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagan Lima v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Legal Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Angul Vs Bharati Mohanty

Puspalata Mohanta Vs Shishir Kumar

D.M, United India Insurance Co. L.T.D. Vs Ashok Kumar Swain

Madhab Chandra Patra Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Nath Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Dibyajyoti Dani Vs State of Odisha