Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal, Holds Investigating Officer Cannot Create Evidence  ||  Supreme Court: NDPS Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Solely Over Co-Accused’s Disclosure  ||  SC: Tax Classification Depends on Goods' Form at Sale, not their End Use  ||  Delhi High Court: No Material Showing Delhi Police Compromised the 2020 Riots Probe  ||  Madras HC Suggests Mandatory Attachment of Properties Suspected to Be Proceeds of Corruption  ||  P&H High Court: Demolition After Lawyer Flagged Corruption Appears Aimed at Silencing Him  ||  Calcutta High Court: Contempt Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Challenge Orders or Attack Judges  ||  Orissa High Court: Marriage Need Not Be Preserved When the Relationship Has Substantially Eroded  ||  SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment    

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