NCLAT: Corporate Debtor’s Guarantor Liability Unchanged Despite Internal Adjustments Among Creditors  ||  NCLAT: Plea under IBC Section 7 Can't Be Restored After Corporate Debtor Pays Principal & Interest  ||  Delhi HC: Wife Can Be Denied Maintenance If She Fails To Submit Latest Salary Slips  ||  Kerala HC: Income of Parent Who Abandoned Family Shouldn’t Count For EWS Reservation Eligibility  ||  Gujarat HC: Writ Courts Interfering in Arbitral Procedure Orders Defies A&C Act’s Purpose  ||  Delhi HC: Plaintiff Doesn’t Have Vested Right to File Rejoinder under CPC  ||  J&K&L HC: Name Change Is Fundamental Right; Boards Must Consider Legal Documents, Not Reject Request  ||  SC: Administrative Delays by State Agencies Must Not Be Condoned  ||  Sc: When Sale Deed Is Void, Possession Suit Follows 12-Year Limitation under Article 65, Not Art 59  ||  SC: Preliminary Inquiry Report Can’t Stop Court from Directing FIR Registration    

Anita Singh v. Health & Family Welfare Department, GNCTD - (Central Information Commission) (31 May 2016)

Doctors risking life by exposure to deadly diseases no less than facing bullets

MANU/CI/0110/2016

Right to Information

The Central Information Commission faced moral quandary hearing a plea for compensation from a mother of a young doctor who died from exposure to swine flu during his service with the Health and Family Welfare Department of Delhi.

The Chief Medical Officer upon receiving the RTI request from the deceased’s mother had transferred the application to other Departments, which percolated into a chain of transfers. It could not be explained why the CMO chose to transfer the application, let alone why to those particular departments, nor was it elaborated why none of the departments had no information on the issue.

The Commission’s sympathies lay with death of the doctor. It noted severally that the Delhi government awarded Rs. 1 crore in compensation to police officials who died in the line of duty; and the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi had made statements about compensating personnel who “die in the line of duty”, though the same was made in the context of civil defence and home guards.

However, Delhi policy regarding compensation for a doctor’s family due to disease was unclear. It proffered, “No policy can discriminate life of a doctor from that of soldier for purposes of compensation. Deadly [disease] like swine flu is as [bad] as a killing assailant.” It called for uniformity in policy to encourage young doctors treating ailing citizens.

The Commission ordered the CMO to prepare a case for consideration before the Chief Minister of Delhi that compensation be given to families of doctors who were killed on duty.

Tags : GOVERNMENT   COMPENSATION   DEATH ON DUTY   DOCTOR   SWINE FLU  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved