≡ Menu

Legal Notice Sent To Bengal Government Seeking Rs. 100 Crore For Defamation And Vicarious Liability In Anuradha Saha Wrongful Death Case: Entire Money Will Be Donated For Healthcare Improvement And Public Welfare In India

A Legal Notice was sent yesterday by PBT president Dr. Kunal Saha’s advocate to the West Bengal Government under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedures (CPC), 1908 with a demand of Rs. 100 Crore for “defamation” and “vicarious liability” as the government failed to take any action after a judge in Calcutta High Court made slanderous and defamatory comments against Dr. Saha while acquitting three senior Kolkata doctors from all charges of medical negligence who were later found guilty for causing death of Dr. Saha’s wife, Anuradha Saha, by the Supreme Court of India. While holding the doctors guilty for medical negligence in 2009, Apex Court also severely chastised the High Court judge and held that the judge made “irresponsible accusations” against Dr. Saha without any basis whatsoever.

After the Apex Court verdict, Dr. Saha moved Calcutta High Court again in 2011 with a case for “criminal defamation” (under Section 500 IPC) against the first judge for his defamatory and irresponsible accusations. Although High Court dismissed Dr. Saha’s petition on technical ground, the court also agreed with the opinion of the Supreme Court that “irresponsible accusations” were made against Dr. Saha and observed that while a private citizen may not file charges against a judge for making derogatory comments in a judgment, the State may take appropriate action and be vicariously liable for any wrong done on a citizen. But since the Bengal Government remained silent and refused to take any action to bring justice to Dr. Saha, he has now sent this Legal Notice claiming Rs. 100 crore for defamation and vicarious liability. However, in the same Legal Notice, Dr. Saha’s advocate has also categorically stated that Dr. Saha will not personally take a single rupee from this lawsuit and the entire money will be donated for improvement of healthcare system and other benevolent public purposes in India. Under Section 80 of CPC, at least 60 days notice must be given to a respondent before filing a claim suit in the appropriate court.

{ 3 comments… add one }

  • Dr TV Padmanabhan September 21, 2017, 1:18 pm

    It is my personal experience, presiding officer of the court make unwarranted comments n insinuations against clients with impunity, to sadistic extent. This has to be stopped. Wish the degree in defamation suit of Dr Saha will turn out to be a case law so that judicial atrocities are reigned effectively.

  • Ajeya Verma September 21, 2017, 1:45 pm

    Very well said Dr. Padmanabhan.. We totally agree on state of law and its %#$@&_* pathetic course… It needs strict correction so that these irresponsible post holders who most of the time misuse has to be utmost cautious …

  • Parag September 22, 2017, 11:46 pm

    If there is collective filing of all the victims of medial negligence that were harrassed by the court rather than providing justice, the claimed amount would be much more than 100 Crores!!

    My family is also a victim of medical negligence. I’ve started the petition “Medical Council of India, Lilavati Hospital: Cancel License, expel Corrupt Nephrologist Hemant Mehta, Prashant Rajput who killed my Mom” and need your help to get it off the ground.

    Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now. Here’s the link:

    http://www.change.org/p/medical-council-of-india-lilavati-hospital-cancel-license-expel-corrupt-nephrologist-hemant-mehta-prashant-rajput-who-killed-my-mom

    Thanks!
    Parag

Leave a Comment