SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation  ||  Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case  ||  Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims  ||  Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation  ||  Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper  ||  Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration  ||  Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal  ||  Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved