A PIL in Madras HC challenges a office memo issued by the Centre for giving ex post facto approval for activities which had commenced in Coastal Regulatory Zones without obtaining prior permission. Litigant says some degradation is irreversible.

by Sekar Reporter · September 8, 2021

$https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1732800159028052461?t=QFQZCedmwYHFiTZu6TcIqw&s=08 C.M.A.No.1915 of 2023 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. The Tribunal has referred to the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board certifying that there is 15% disability. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant had suffered an amputation and the report of the Medical Board is erroneous. In order to satisfy us as to the claim made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we had required the appellant to be present in person. 3. He appeared before us on 01.12.2023 and we found as of fact that his right leg has been amputated just above the ankle. Such amputation by itself, even as per the Schedule to the Employees Compensation Act would amount to 50% disability. A perusal of the report filed by the Medical Board shocks us as we find that the amputation itself is not noted. 4. Three Doctors are signatories to the said report and in the column regarding the nature of the injury it is stated that I) Head injury, II) Degloving injury right forearm and III) Crush injury right foot and ankle. Type of treatment has been shown as I) Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) with plating left clavicle and II) Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) with plating for mandible and while describing the Present Clinical Features it is stated that Difficulty in using Left shoulder and pain over fracture site. 5. It is very clear from the above that the Medical Board has not seen the Discharge Summary fully, only the first page has been seen and the report has been prepared. The Tribunal has also chosen to rely upon the said report. We are unable to appreciate either the action of the Medical Board or the action of the Tribunal. 6. We therefore deem it fit to suo motu implead the Secretary, Health Department as a party respondent in this appeal, since we genuinely feel that some corrective actions should be put in place, so that such negligent acts by the Medical Board do not recur. 7. The Registry is directed to issue notice, today itself, to the Secretary, Health Department by enclosing a copy of this order and requiring the Secretary, Health Department to file a report on the action that could be taken to avoid recurrence of such negligent acts by the Medical Boards. The Registry is also directed to serve a copy of this order to Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General with a Note to him to get appropriate instructions and informing him that the matter is listed on 14.12.2023. 8. Post on 14.12.2023. (R.S.M.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 07.12.2023 dsa R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. dsa C.M.A.No.1915 of 2023 07.12.2023$

https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1732800159028052461?t=QFQZCedmwYHFiTZu6TcIqw&s=08 C.M.A.No.1915 of 2023 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. The Tribunal has referred to the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board certifying that there is 15% disability. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant had suffered an amputation and the report of the Medical Board is erroneous. In order to satisfy us as to the claim made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we had required the appellant to be present in person. 3. He appeared before us on 01.12.2023 and we found as of fact that his right leg has been amputated just above the ankle. Such amputation by itself, even as per the Schedule to the Employees Compensation Act would amount to 50% disability. A perusal of the report filed by the Medical Board shocks us as we find that the amputation itself is not noted. 4. Three Doctors are signatories to the said report and in the column regarding the nature of the injury it is stated that I) Head injury, II) Degloving injury right forearm and III) Crush injury right foot and ankle. Type of treatment has been shown as I) Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) with plating left clavicle and II) Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) with plating for mandible and while describing the Present Clinical Features it is stated that Difficulty in using Left shoulder and pain over fracture site. 5. It is very clear from the above that the Medical Board has not seen the Discharge Summary fully, only the first page has been seen and the report has been prepared. The Tribunal has also chosen to rely upon the said report. We are unable to appreciate either the action of the Medical Board or the action of the Tribunal. 6. We therefore deem it fit to suo motu implead the Secretary, Health Department as a party respondent in this appeal, since we genuinely feel that some corrective actions should be put in place, so that such negligent acts by the Medical Board do not recur. 7. The Registry is directed to issue notice, today itself, to the Secretary, Health Department by enclosing a copy of this order and requiring the Secretary, Health Department to file a report on the action that could be taken to avoid recurrence of such negligent acts by the Medical Boards. The Registry is also directed to serve a copy of this order to Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General with a Note to him to get appropriate instructions and informing him that the matter is listed on 14.12.2023. 8. Post on 14.12.2023. (R.S.M.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 07.12.2023 dsa R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. dsa C.M.A.No.1915 of 2023 07.12.2023

December 7, 2023

A PIL in Madras HC challenges a office memo issued by the Centre for giving ex post facto approval for activities which had commenced in Coastal Regulatory Zones without obtaining prior permission. Litigant says some degradation is irreversible.

You may also like...

Recent Posts

Recent Posts