State is strictly liable under Article 21 for patient's death caused by negligence in government-run mental hospitals.

The petitioners are the widow and children of a deceased real estate agent who suffered from schizophrenia. He was admitted to the Yerwada Mental Hospital (a State-run facility) for treatment on 19.11.2013

On the night of 20.11.2013, the deceased was violently attacked and throttled by another inmate, Deepak Suravase, who had a history of violent behavior

The deceased died due to head injuries and throttling

Investigations and RTI queries revealed that despite norms requiring a 1:5 attendant-to-patient ratio, only three attendants were on duty for 72 patients in the observation ward at the time of the incident

The petitioners sought monetary compensation for negligence and violation of the right to life under Article 21, specifically noting that the third petitioner (the victim's son) suffers from 90% mental retardation and was dependent on the deceased

1. Whether the State is liable to pay monetary compensation under public law for the death of an inpatient in a government mental hospital due to the violent acts of another patient

2. Whether the failure to maintain adequate staff and segregate violent patients constitutes gross negligence and a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21

3. What is the appropriate quantum of compensation and the method for its determination in the absence of a specific statutory framework

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, establishing the State’s strict liability to compensate for the violation of the fundamental right to life

The court relied on Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, which recognized monetary compensation as a public law remedy for fundamental right infringements

The court followed D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal regarding the State's vicarious liability for the negligence of its servants

Rule 22 of the State Mental Health Rules, 1990, regarding staffing norms

The court adopted the multiplier/multiplicand method for quantum assessment from Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

The court found that the deceased was in the "care and custody" of the State, creating a duty of care

The State admitted that only three attendants were managing 72 patients, which the court held was a "woefully inadequate" violation of the 1:5 ratio mandated by the 1990 Rules, constituting gross negligence

The court reasoned that the hospital failed to segregate a known violent patient (Suravase) from others, directly leading to the fatal attack

Rejecting the State's defense that compensation should be limited to the ₹2-5 lakh specified in government schemes (Victim Compensation Scheme 2014 and the 2025 Resolution on custodial deaths), the court held these amounts were "woefully inadequate" for a public law remedy

To reach a logical figure, the court applied motor accident claim principles: calculating an annual income of ₹1,90,095 based on ITRs, adding 10% for future prospects, applying a multiplier of 11 (for age 52), and adding amounts for loss of consortium and funeral expenses

The court ordered the State to pay a total compensation of ₹22,00,000 to Petitioner No. 1, which includes a rounded-off figure of ₹17,00,000 based on economic dependency and an additional ₹5,00,000 specifically for the lifelong care needs of the mentally disabled Petitioner No. 3

The amount must be paid within eight weeks, failing which it will carry 9% interest per annum. The court clarified that the ₹1,00,000 previously paid under the Lokayukta’s order was not to be adjusted against this final award