Madras HC Grants ₹10 Lakh Compensation In Case Where Employee Died While Disposing Of Discarded Medical Waste; Cites Res Ipsa Loquitur Principle
The Madras High Court granted compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the father of an employee who died while disposing of the discarded medical waste along with garbage at the backyard of the hospital.
The Madurai Bench was deciding a writ petition seeking directions to the authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation amount for the illegal management of medical waste at Government Primary Health Centre (PHC), Maravanur, Manapparai, Trichy District.
A Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan said, “The State has to be a model employer. It cannot be seen compromising the safety of its employees. Kalaiyarasan was tasked to do something which he was not trained or expected to do. It is absurd to suggest that he came to G.H. Manaparai on his own and voluntarily set fire to the garbage heap. He had obviously been provided with a sanitizer liquid. He was instructed to dispose of the garbage by setting fire to it. No warning was given. In fact, such disposal was not contemplated by law. This is a case in which res ipsa loquitur principle applies and I fasten the respondent State with liability.”
The Bench noted that where the State is tortuously liable, compensation can be awarded in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Advocate G. Sujeeth appeared for the petitioner while Government Advocates P. Thambi Durai and Albert James appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner was a daily wager and his wife passed away some time back. He had a son and two daughters and the elder son was working as a domestic breeding checker at Government PHC. The petitioner’s case was that his son was sent to the new PHC and asked to dispose of the discarded medical waste along with garbage at the backyard of the hospital. When the petitioner’s son was carrying out the instruction, the expired medicines exploded and he suffered 80% burn injuries on his entire body.
The petitioner’s son was shifted to the Government Hospital, Manappari and the treatment proved futile and died. The petitioner contended that the occurrence took place on account of the negligence of the authorities. He, therefore, sought compensation and the respondents claimed that the petitioner’s son on his own had burnt the medical waste. They further claimed that they were adopting the requisite procedure for disposing the bio-medical waste in urban Primary Health Centre, Manappari and that they cannot be fastened with any liability for the accident.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “The respondents have not elaborated on the contents of the garbage. Unless some kind of inflammable substances were in the garbage heap, it would not have suddenly caught fire so as to envelope Kalaiyarasan in flames. Photographs of the victim have been enclosed in the typed set of papers. It is seen that his entire front portion including face had suffered severe burns. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, I conclude that the garbage heap contained inflammable substances.”
The Court said that any hospital waste will have to be disposed of only as per the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 which contains elaborate provisions for disposal.
“The authorities have an obligation to adhere to the disposal regime set out therein. They cannot short-circuit the procedure. Even an expired medicine is inherently hazardous. That is why, Rule 4 which catalogues the duties of the occupier mandates that he shall ensure occupational safety of all its healthcare workers and others involved in handling of bio-medical waste by providing appropriate and adequate personal protective equipment. In this case, Kalaiyarasan ought not to have been permitted to douse the garbage with sanitizer liquid and set fire to the same”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court enunciated that as per Rule 18 of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, the occupier or an operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall be liable for all the damages caused to the environment or the public due to improper handling of bio-medical wastes and this liability rule can be extended in favour of the workers who turn out to be victims.
“It is unfortunate that a counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for compensation. I would expect the respondents to straightaway concede in such cases. Of late, I have been invoking the doctrine of benevolent exercise of power in different contexts. I cannot find a more apposite case for invocation of this doctrine”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pay compensation.
Cause Title- Arjunan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
