CASE LAWS

CASE – I
REGISTRATION NO. – RJN/102/09

REGISTRATION DATE - 01/11/2009

PLAINTIFF’S NAME – Smt. Aashadevi Netam

PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS- G-2, New Civil Line , Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

DEFENDANT’S NAME – Hospital Supritendent

DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS – District Hospital, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASE- Negligence on the part of district hospital.

(complaint related to health department)

STATEMENT OF FACTS -

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the commission complaining about the

negligence done by the doctors of the city hospital. Plaintiff’s son was
admitted in the hospital on 11/09/09. But instead of recovering plaintiff’s sons’s
condition kept worsening. No emergency facilities or I.C.U. was made available
to him. Also he was not referred to a better hospital by the doctors. And due to
negligence of hospital staff in his treatement and lack of care plaintiff’s son
died on 13/09/09. Also plaintiff made a complaint against the education
department of not sanctioning the claim of exgresia.

It was held under Section 38 and Section 40 that there was negligence on in the
treatement by the hospital and plaintiff was entitled to compensation.
CASE – II
REGISTRATION NO. – 1472/2015/RYP/POC

REGISTRATION DATE - 04/11/2015

PLAINTIFF’S NAME – Vibha Soni d/o Mr. Nand Kumar Soni

PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS - Indra Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Police station

Tilakpara , Raipur (C.G.)

DEFENDANT’S NAME – Sub inspector , Anuradha Rao.

DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS – Police station Tilakpara , Raipur (C.G.)

BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASE- Complaint to take action against Sub inspector,

Anuradha Rao. (other police related complaints )

STATEMENT OF FACTS - Plaintiff was being molested and tortured by her

in laws force dowry since the start of her marriage . She was forced to give her
gifted gold and silver jewellery to her sister-in-law and brother-in-law. She filed
complaint against all this in women police station where sub inspector
Anuradha Rao forced her to take back her complaint and not to take any action
against her complaint.

It was held that since this complaint was already filed in National Womens
Commission and then in Human Rights Commission , the complaint was
dismissed.
CASE – III
REGISTRATION NO. – 434/2016

REGISTRATION DATE - 04/04/2016

PLAINTIFF’S NAME – Mrs. Sarojini Bhargav

PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS - Women Welfare Association, (C.G)

DEFENDANT’S NAME – K.M. Babu and Ors.

DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS – Opp. Government college, Kosabadi,Korba

BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASE- Appropriate action against Jitendra Sahu and

K.M. Babu. ( atrocities against women )

STATEMENT OF FACTS – The complaint has been filed against South Indian
Mr. K.M. Babu s/o K.M. Mannulal and Mr. Jitendra Sahu s/o Mr. Babul lal
Sahu as they used to molest innocent female workers by blackmailing them and
sexually harassing them. They used to put false complaint against women
workers and in exchange of taking back their complaint used to molest them ,
blackmail them and forced them to have sexual relations with them. Mr. K.M.
Babu married some women, used them and then abandoned them. Mr. Jitendra
Sahu used to deal in drugs and search for innocent women who can be their
target.

It was held that since the complaint was addressed to CM and not to the
Commission, the complaint has been dismissed and no action could be taken
against both the men by this commission.
CASE – IV
REGISTRATION NO. – 382/2016/KNK/RDC

REGISTRATION DATE - 21/03/2016

PLAINTIFF’S NAME – Chintaran Devangan s/o Devlal Devangan

PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS - Village Charama ,Tehsil Charama, district North

Bastar, Kanker (C.G)

DEFENDANT’S NAME – Tehsildar

DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS - Tehsil Charama,district Kanker (C.G.)

BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASE- Already decided case was opened. ( complaint

related to revenue department )

STATEMENT OF FACTS - Plaintiff Chintaram and Shankarlal Devangan

have complained to the commission that two women had filed a case against
them for seizing property. The case which was filed by womens on 29/04/13 in
front of Tehsildar was dismissed as plaintiff presented all the necessary
documents in court in front of Tehsildar. But Rama Bai and Lata Bai again
filed a case dated 10/05/15 against plaintiff and his brother for registration of
the same property. Plaintiff is suffering financially due to the reopening of case.

It was held that according to plaintiff the case is filed under court of Tehsildar.
The Commission cannot interfere in the procedure of court. Hence the
complaint is dismissed.
CASE – V
REGISTRATION NO. – GRB/21/2012/PC

REGISTRATION DATE - 24/08/2012

PLAINTIFF’S NAME – Subhasdra Bai Nagesh w/o late Mr.Babulal Nagesh

Kumar

PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS - Village Thirliguda ,post Khoksara, district

Gariyaband (C.G)

DEFENDANT’S NAME – Branch Manager

DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS – Dena Bank Devbhog Gariyaband (C.G.)

BRIEF SUMMARY – Demand of pension ariers from Dena Bank.

STATEMENT OF FACTS – Plaintiff Subhadra Bai Nagesh w/o late Mr.

Babulal Nagesh complained to the commission that her husband died on
01/01/11 and plaintiff started receiving the pension after his death. After one
year the pension arier of plaintiff’s husband was transferred to loan of
plaintiff’s son which he took for buying tractor. The complaint was presented
to the Commission and since it was a violation of human right, Commission
asked Dena Bank Devbhog their statement.

Dena Bank provided their statement under Section – 11 stated that the tractor
loan was taken by plaintiff and her son jointly. Plaintiff’s statement that she had
no idea of her son’s loan is wrong.

It was held that accepting Section – 11 and the statement of defendant

complaint of plaintiff was dismissed.