Bombay HC orders ₹22 lakh compensation to family of Yerwada mental hospital patient killed by another inmate

The Bombay High Court has held the Maharashtra government liable for the death of a patient in Yerwada Mental Hospital after he was beaten to death by a fellow patient [Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya v. State & Ors.]

The Court directed the State to pay ₹22 lakh in compensation to his widow and two children over and above the ₹1 lakh earlier paid to them pursuant to a Lokayukta order.

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V Shirsat noted that while 72 patients were lodged in the ward, only three attendants were on duty at night which was against the State Mental Health Rules, 1990. The rules mandate one attendant for every 5 patients. 

“It is obvious that the strength of the attendants was woefully inadequate, apart from the fact that it violated the ‘minimum facilities’ for patients in the mental hospital. On this score itself it is evident that the respondent-State failed in its duty to take sufficient care of the patients in the Yerwada Mental Hospital,” the bench said.

The Court passed the verdict on a plea filed by the widow of the deceased, a Pune realtor, who was beaten to death in the hospital’s observation ward by another patient, Deepak Suravase, on the night of November 20, 2013. 

The hospital argued there was no lapse on the part of the administration. However, the Court disagreed.

The judges faulted the authorities for not segregating violent patients like Suravase from others despite his known tendency towards aggression. 

“This was the basic minimum expected from the concerned officers of the Yerwada Mental Hospital. Failure to do so led to the said incident, wherein two persons died due to the violent attack,” the bench held.

The bench concluded there was gross negligence on the hospital’s part requiring no further evidence.

The bench reiterated that violation of the right to life under Article 21 by State attracts public law remedy of monetary compensation.

The deceased, a self‑employed real estate agent, died while in the care and custody of a State‑run facility. 

“The State is clearly responsible for the violation of fundamental rights of the said deceased and consequentially, the rights of the petitioners as the deceased was the only breadwinner of the family,” the Court concluded.

The bench borrowed the structured formula evolved in the motor accident claims to quantify loss of dependency. 

The bench relied on the victim’s income tax returns which led to a figure of ₹17 lakh. An additional ₹5 lakh was granted because the couple’s son has 90% permanent mental disability, a factor the Court described as crucial in fixing compensation.

The State’s victim compensation norms of ₹2 lakh for loss of life and ₹5 lakh for custodial death were termed “woefully inadequate”, and the court directed payment of ₹22 lakh within eight weeks. Delay in payment would attract 9% annual interest, the Court ordered.

Advocates Vrushali L Maindad, Manali P Sawant and Akshada C Mundhe appeared for the widow.

Additional government pleaders NC Walimbe, and Tanu N Bhatia appeared for the State.

Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar and Raghav Dharmadhikari were the Amici. 

[Read Judgment]