NIMHANS told to implement ₹50,000 compensation recommendation to widow over alleged lapses in emergency care of her husband

The Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (KS HRC) considered a complaint alleging that NIMHANS failed to provide adequate and timely care to Prem Singh, who was brought to its casualty ward with head injuries on 24 May 2010, and failed to arrange an ambulance when he was referred to another hospital.

The complaint was made by a doctor who said he had knowledge of the incident; the Commission also had a communication from a former judge who had witnessed aspects of the events.

The Commission recommended that NIMHANS pay ₹50,000 to Prem Singh’s widow and conduct an enquiry.

NIMHANS sought to quash the recommendation, arguing, among other things, that it had not effectively participated in the Commission’s proceedings because of a communication gap.

1. Whether the KS HRC’s recommendations under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, were amenable to challenge by writ petition.

2. Whether the recommendations warranted interference on the grounds raised by NIMHANS, including alleged denial of an effective opportunity to participate.

Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, empowers the Commission, after an enquiry, to make recommendations to the concerned Government or authority, including recommendations concerning compensation or other appropriate action.

The authority concerned must consider the recommendations and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The judgment records the respondent Commission’s reliance on M.S. Ashok and Others v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and Another, W.P. No. 28934/2009, but does not set out or independently apply a specific rule from that decision.

The Court found that NIMHANS had been given an opportunity to participate and that its explanation of a communication gap did not establish that the Commission acted without jurisdiction or breached a mandatory statutory requirement.

The Commission’s recommendations were based on a complaint by a person said to have knowledge of the incident and a communication from a former judge who had witnessed relevant circumstances.

NIMHANS produced no material showing that the recommendations were perverse or jurisdictionally defective.

The Court also considered that NIMHANS had not served notice on Prem Singh’s widow, despite the petition’s long pendency, as weighing against discretionary relief.

The Director was further directed to submit a compliance report to the Registry within two weeks after completing that exercise, for the Court’s perusal.