Custodial Death Compensation India: HC Orders Compensation to Wife After Negligence of Diabetes Care by Jail Authorities

Introduction:

The Orissa High Court has ordered the State of Odisha to compensate the wife of an undertrial prisoner who passed away in custody because of the negligence by jail authorities in delivering prompt and sufficient medical care for diabetes. 

A Single Bench led by Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy determined that the neglect of prison staff to provide adequate medical treatment to a recognized diabetic inmate constituted a blatant infringement of the State’s custodial responsibility, thus granting the deceased's spouse the right to compensation. 

Facts of the Case: 

The deceased's wife filed a petition seeking ₹50 lakh in compensation, arguing that her husband's premature death was due to insufficient medical treatment, nutrition, and medication during his time as an undertrial at Nimapara Sub-Jail. 

The individual who passed away was a Panchayat Executive Officer and was arrested for offences under Sections 409, 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his arrest, he was put in judicial custody and retained as an undertrial prisoner beginning on 20 September 2016. 

It was contended that the deceased had endured chronic diabetes since 2008, a detail that the prison authorities were completely aware of. Nevertheless, he allegedly did not obtain adequate medical care for his ailment, leading to a marked deterioration in his health and, ultimately, his death on 26 January 2017. 

Contentions of the Parties: 

The petitioner-wife argued that the prison officials were fully informed of her husband's medical condition yet did not offer suitable treatment. It was additionally mentioned that only after she contacted the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pipili, her husband was transferred to the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri. 

Conversely, the State argued that during a jail inspection carried out by the District and Sessions Judge, Puri, the undertrial inmate did not express any grievances about medical negligence or inadequate treatment. 

Observations of the Court:

Upon reviewing the available materials, the High Court dismissed the State’s argument and determined that the petitioner had effectively proven negligence by the jail authorities. 

The Court noted:

“Since the husband of the Petitioner stayed in custody starting from.” On 20.09.2016, while in custody, his health worsened, leading to his death on 26.01.2017. This Court believes that the Petitioner’s claim for compensation due to negligence by the jail authorities is substantiated. 

The Court also observed that even though the undertrial prisoner was ultimately moved to the District Headquarters Hospital in Puri and then to SCB Medical College and Hospital in Cuttack on 25 January 2017, the transfer occurred too late, as his condition had already deteriorated considerably by that point. 

In a letter dated 24 January 2017, the Court determined that the delay in delivering specialized medical treatment significantly contributed to the prisoner's death. 

Compensation Awarded:

Considering the deceased’s earnings, the petitioner’s age and future possibilities, along with the details of the custodial death, the Court granted ₹20,00,000 (Twenty Lakhs) as compensation. 

The Court instructed the State Government to disburse the compensation amount within six weeks from the order's receipt date. 

Representation: 

• Attorney H.K. Rout represented the Petitioner. 

• The State of Odisha was represented by Additional Government Advocate A. Tripathy. 

  
  

Custodial Death Compensation India and the State’s Constitutional Duty: 

The judgment further strengthens the evolving doctrine of custodial death compensation in India, emphasizing the State’s constitutional duty to safeguard the life and health of individuals in custody. 

The decision emphasizes that custodial duty goes beyond simple confinement and encompasses the constitutional duty to protect the life and well-being of inmates. The negligence in delivering prompt medical care, especially when officials are informed of an inmate's health issue, constitutes a breach of Article 21 of the Constitution, necessitating public law compensation.  

This ruling reinforces the idea that the State cannot avoid responsibility for custodial deaths due to neglect, and that inmates, including those awaiting trial, have the right to humane and dignified treatment according to the law.   

Want to stay updated with important judgments like this? Explore how the best legal AI tool in India can help lawyers and researchers track case law, analyze judgments, and simplify legal research.