Case title: Satyanand Singh vs. Union of India & Ors
Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 1666 of 2015
Decided on: 18.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involved an appellant who was enrolled in the Indian Army in 1993 as a Havaldar. In 1999, he began experiencing symptoms like fever, headache, and vomiting, leading to a positive HIV test at the Jabalpur Military Hospital. Subsequently, in 2001, he developed similar symptoms and was diagnosed with neuro tuberculosis, which rendered him unfit for service as a Clerk. The appellant argued that he was wrongfully discharged based on a misdiagnosis of AIDS, as he remained asymptomatic and did not receive anti-retroviral therapy. The respondents contended that the appellant was diagnosed with neuro-tuberculosis based on prevailing medical knowledge in 2001. The case highlighted issues of misdiagnosis, negligence, and lack of proper medical examination in the appellant’s discharge from service.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Army Act: The appellant, as an enrolled person under the Army Act, was discharged on the ground of being found medically unfit for further service.
Guidelines for Management and Prevention of HIV/AIDS Infection in the Armed Forces (2003 Guidelines): Introduced considerations like CD4 cell count for invalidment, with a count below 200 cells/mm3 being a condition.
Regulations for the Army, 1987: Para 355 (f)2 of the Regulations was cited in the appellant’s case regarding discharge due to contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
Rules: The appellant was discharged under Rule 13 (3), Item III(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954, for being medically unfit.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017: Despite this Act, stigma and discrimination persisted for HIV+ individuals.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellants in the case raised several contentions. Firstly, they argued that there was an error in the diagnosis, asserting that the appellant was asymptomatic and never developed AIDS, indicating a wrongful discharge based on a misdiagnosis. Secondly, the appellant’s counsel referred to the 1992 Guidelines to support the argument that personnel with HIV infection were supposed to be retained in service, with restrictions on their employment in certain areas. Additionally, it was contended that the appellant was treated with disdain, discrimination, and stigma by the respondent employer, lacking dignity, honor, and compassion towards the appellant. The impact of the severance of the employer-employee relationship was emphasized as a significant loss, affecting the appellant’s livelihood and those dependent on him, especially considering the sudden displacement from military life. Lastly, the denial of disability pension was highlighted as a point of contention, as the appellant’s consistent prayers for disability pension were rejected on the grounds that the disease was considered self-inflicted, leading to further financial and emotional distress.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents in the case presented several contentions. Firstly, they argued that the appellant’s discharge was not solely based on his HIV+ status, pointing out his uninterrupted service from 1999 to April 2001. They contended that the diagnosis of neuro-tuberculosis in 2001 was made based on prevailing medical knowledge, leading to a change in the appellant’s status to “AIDS related complex.” Secondly, the respondents cited extensive medical literature on the hazards of HIV and its impact on physical health, highlighting that the appellant responded well to treatment administered by the Command Hospital at Pune in 2001, despite not exhibiting typical AIDS symptoms.
Additionally, they rejected the argument that the appellant was AIDS-free based on his CD4 cell count, stating that meeting the WHO benchmark did not automatically qualify him as AIDS-free or warrant referral to a Review Medical Board. Lastly, the respondents maintained that the appellant’s case had been re-examined multiple times and did not necessitate further review, emphasizing that his medical condition had been assessed repeatedly without justification for another examination or referral to a Medical Board.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court’s analysis and judgment in the case involved several key points. The Court noted that there was a lack of effort by the respondents to determine the root cause of the appellant’s physical distress. It emphasized the importance of compensatory jurisprudence in delivering justice, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court criticized the respondents for what it deemed a case of wrong diagnosis with serious consequences for the appellant. It rejected the contention that the appellant was HIV+ve based on the 2001 diagnosis, pointing out lapses and negligence on the part of the respondents. The Court highlighted the need for correct diagnoses, especially considering the appellant’s premature discharge from the army. Regarding the medical specialist’s opinion, the Court disagreed with the AFT’s assessment that an oncologist’s presence sufficed, emphasizing the need for a neurologist’s examination. It criticized the respondents for attempting to cover up the misdiagnosis despite guidelines and test reports available since 2003.
In the judgment, the Court acknowledged the lack of dignity, honor, and compassion shown to the appellant by the respondent employer. It recognized the harm caused by such behavior, stating that no amount of monetary compensation could fully undo the damage to the appellant’s dignity and honor. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the wrongful discharge based on a misdiagnosis. It emphasized the lack of symptoms and successful response to treatment as evidence against the AIDS diagnosis. The Court’s judgment aimed to rectify the injustice faced by the appellant and address the stigma and discrimination he endured.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
