Case Note & Summary
The petitioner's daughter, Tejuswini, a final-year diploma student at a polytechnic college in Mumbai, collapsed in her classroom on 22 February 2016, hit her head, and later died due to a haemorrhage. The petitioner alleged negligence by the college for lack of adequate medical facilities and delay in transporting her daughter to the hospital, and sought compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs from the college and hospitals. The college argued that Tejuswini had pre-existing health conditions and that they had taken reasonable measures, including insurance payout and fee refund. The Human Rights Commission had earlier found no negligence. The Bombay High Court held that the disputed facts regarding negligence and pre-existing conditions could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, as the claim fell under tort law, and thus negatived the claim for damages. However, the court addressed the larger issue of medical facilities in educational institutes. It noted that AICTE norms require first aid rooms and medical facilities, and that the State had not issued any directives. During the proceedings, the Higher and Technical Education Department issued a Circular on 10 July 2024 mandating various measures such as first aid rooms, insurance, training, and emergency coordination. The court directed that the Circular must specify consequences for non-compliance, and that the Education Department should issue a similar circular. The court disposed of the petition with directions to the State to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of medical facilities in educational institutes.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Tort Claims - Disputed Facts - The court held that seriously disputed factual issues regarding pre-existing conditions and negligence cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, and the claim for damages falls in the realm of tort law. (Para 7) B) Education Law - Medical Facilities in Educational Institutes - AICTE Norms - The court noted that AICTE Approval Handbooks require first aid cum sick rooms, medical facilities, and MoUs with hospitals, and directed the State to issue circulars ensuring compliance. (Paras 10-14) C) Education Law - State Directives - Non-Compliance Consequences - The court directed the Higher and Technical Education Department to specify consequences for non-compliance with the Circular dated 10 July 2024, and the Education Department to issue a similar circular within a time limit. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court can grant compensation for alleged medical negligence in writ jurisdiction, and whether the State should be directed to ensure adequate medical facilities in educational institutes.
Final Decision
The court negatived the claim for compensation as it involved disputed facts falling under tort law, but disposed of the petition with directions to the Higher and Technical Education Department to specify consequences for non-compliance with Circular dated 10 July 2024, and to the Education Department to issue a similar circular within a time limit.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction not suitable for adjudicating disputed facts in tort claims
- State's power to issue directions to educational institutes
- AICTE norms for first aid and medical facilities
- necessity of consequences for non-compliance with circulars
