Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010004032025 2026:GAU-AS:7560 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/149/2025 URMILA SUBBA D/O- SRI KARAN KUMAR SUBBA, R/O- KHARUPETIA, TILAPOOTY, P.S. KHARUPETIA, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784115. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, ASSAM-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM A BLOCK 4TH FLOOR ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL) DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM-781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HEALTH COMPLEX LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL NARAKASUR HILLTOP BHANGAGARH Page No.# 2/9 GUWAHATI ASSAM-781032. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG NH-15 MANGALDOI DARRANG DIST. DARRANG ASSAM-784125. 6:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NDCC.II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI-11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GHOSH, MS N DEKA,MS H BETALA,MR I CHAKMA,MR. S. K. CHAKMA,MR A.K. HAJONG Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. D.J. DAS, SC, C.G.C.,SC, HEALTH :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Page No.# 3/9 Judgment & Order (Oral) Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 as well as Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 5. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, a victim of an acid attack, has sought for expeditious specialised/advanced medical treatment for healing and correction of the permanent disfigurement and scars resulting from the said attack, at a hospital having appropriate facilities and requisite arrangements. The petitioner has also sought for directions to the respondent authorities for bearing the expenses of such treatment, including travel and lodging expenses, as well as release of the additional compensation claimed by her. 3. The petitioner was married in the month of August, 2018. On 31.08.2022, she was subjected to an acid attack allegedly committed by her husband, as a result of which she sustained grievous burn injuries on her face, neck and other parts of her body. She was initially taken to Mongaldoi Civil Hospital and considering the severity of her injuries, was thereafter referred to and admitted at the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMC&H), Guwahati, where she underwent emergency treatment and multiple surgeries. The petitioner has suffered permanent disfigurement of her face due to the said attack. In connection with the incident, Kharupetia Police Station Case No. 238/2022 was registered under Section 326(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the alleged perpetrator, who incidentally is her husband. 4. The petitioner applied for compensation under the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012. The District Legal Services Authority, Darrang, Page No.# 4/9 Mangaldoi, by order dated 14.08.2023, granted financial assistance of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only), which amount was released to the petitioner on 30.09.2023. The petitioner has thereafter undergone treatment at various medical facilities, including GMC&H, Guwahati. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the compensation amount received by her has almost been exhausted towards medical expenses, medicine costs, travelling expenses and other allied expenses incurred in connection with her treatment. It is contended that she is yet to undergo multiple surgeries and advanced treatment for correction of the burn injuries sustained in the acid attack and owing to her financial constraints, she is unable to bear the expenses required for such treatment and is, therefore, in need of further financial assistance. 6. Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, being a victim of an acid attack, is entitled to higher compensation in view of the trauma, suffering, permanent disfigurement and hardship endured by her, as well as the financial constraints faced by her family in bearing the cost of treatment. She submits that the petitioner is also entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in terms of the communication dated 09.11.2016 issued by the Government of India regarding assistance to victims of acid attack. 7. Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel, by referring to the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in XXX vs. IN RE :- the State of Assam & Anr. [WP(C)749/2014], dated 24.06.2016, as well as the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2014) 4 SCC 427, submits that the responsibility for treatment Page No.# 5/9 and rehabilitation of a victim of acid attack lies upon the State and that the State is required to bear all expenses in connection therewith. She accordingly submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to ensure immediate specialised medical treatment to the petitioner by bearing all expenses relating to such treatment, including the cost of medicines, travelling and lodging expenses. Learned counsel further submits that, if the treatment required by the petitioner is not available within the State of Assam, she may be referred to a well-equipped hospital where surgeries for burn injuries caused by the acid attack are available and such treatment be provided to her free of cost. 8. This Court, considering the claims of the petitioner, by order dated 24.03.2025, directed the respondent authorities to constitute a Medical Board to ascertain whether the petitioner required advanced treatment for healing and removal of scars resulting from the acid attack and whether such treatment was available at GMC&H, Guwahati. The Medical Board was also directed to indicate the probable expenditure involved in such treatment at GMC&H as well as at any private medical institution. 9. Pursuant thereto, a Medical Board was constituted consisting of specialists from the Departments of Plastic Surgery, Dermatology and Surgery of GMC&H. The Medical Board examined the petitioner on 03.04.2025 and thereafter submitted its report before this Court. The report of the Medical Board is reproduced hereinunder: “…Report of the Medical Board In accordance with the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's Order dated 24.03.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 149/2025, the respondent No. 4 ie, the Superintendent of Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati, duly constituted a Medical Board so as to verify whether the petitioner requires advance treatment for healing and removal of scar out of the acid attack, and whether such treatment is available at GMCH, Guwahati, along with Page No.# 6/9 suggestions regarding the cost of such treatment at GMCH and in a private hospital. The said Medical Board was constituted by Order No. MCH/899/2025/MEDICAL EXAM/URMILA SUBBA/37-A Dated 29.03.2025 comprising of the following specialists doctors of GMCH, Guwahati: 1. Dr. Kabita Kalita, Prof. & HOD of Plastic Surgery Dept., GMCH as Chairman 2. Dr. Bobita Boro, Associate Prof. of Dermatology Dept., GMCH as Member Secretary 3. Dr. Partha Pratim Bora, Assistant Prof. of Surgery Dept., GMCH as Member 4. Dr. Ujjal Kumar Sarmah, Dy. Superintendent, GMCH as Member On April 3, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., the Board met in the GMCH's Conference Hall with the petitioner URMILA SUBBA present to examine the petitioner's current health condition to assess the requirement of advance treatment for the petitioner to improve and its finding are as noted below: 1. After the acid attack, the petitioner was initially taken to GMCH's & admitted in the Burn Unit on August 31, 2022, with 10-12% acid burns on her face, neck, and shoulders. On October 7th 2022, the required surgery (debridement + SSG over face under GA) was performed. On November 8, 2022, the patient was released on request, with instructions to visit the burn clinic on Thursday, two weeks later, after that the Petitioner had visited the Plastic Surgery OPD. On 02.12.2022, Eye OPD on 8-12-2022( Thursday). On 22-4-2024 she attended plastic surgery OPD and advised her to attend plastic surgery OPD in June of last week for planning of OT date. 2. The petitioner was admitted at GMCH on July 1, 2024 under the Plastic Surgery Dept., with Post acid burn left lower eyelid ectropion. Surgery was done for release of Ectropion and SSG. The petitioner was discharged on July 4, 2024 with the advice to attend Plastic Surgery OPD on Monday after one (1) week/SOS. 3. She was visited plastic surgery OPD on 15-7-2024 for check up. 4. For improvement of the face appearance and function of eyes patient will require multiple surgeries in multiple stages, which can be performed at GMCH. But the time required, and outcome for these surgeries cannot be predicted. Even the expenditure required cannot be predicted arbitrarily at this moment as it will require multiple stages of surgery. [Dr. Ujjal Kr. Sarmah] Dy. Superintendent, GMCH Member of the Medical Board [Dr. Partha Pratim Bora] Page No.# 7/9 Asstt. Prof. of Surgery Dept., GMCH Member of the Medical Board [Dr. Bobita Boro] Associate Prof. of Dermatology Dept. GMCH Member Secy. of the Medical Board [Dr. Kabita Kalita] Prof. & HOD of Plastic Surgery Dept., GMCH Chairman of the Medical Board.” 10. Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, submits that the Medical Board has categorically opined that the petitioner would require multiple surgeries in multiple stages for improvement of her facial appearance and function of the eyes and that such surgeries can be performed at GMC&H. He further submits that the time required, outcome and exact expenditure for such treatment cannot be assessed at this stage as the treatment process would involve multiple surgical interventions. 11. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully perused the materials available on record. 12. The petitioner is an unfortunate victim of an acid attack. The perpetrator, incidentally, is her own husband. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had undergone various treatments for the injuries sustained as a result of the acid attack at various hospitals, including GMC&H, Guwahati. 13. The report of the Medical Board, as constituted in terms of the order of this Court dated 24.03.2025 passed in the present proceedings, clearly indicates the requirement of further advanced treatment for improvement of the facial appearance and function of the eyes, which would require multiple surgeries in Page No.# 8/9 multiple stages and which can be performed at GMC&H, Guwahati. 14. It is a settled position of law that the responsibility for treatment and rehabilitation of a victim of acid attack lies upon the State and the State is under an obligation to ensure that such victim receives immediate and effective specialised medical treatment. 15. In the case of XXX vs. IN RE :- the State of Assam (supra), while dealing with the issue of treatment and rehabilitation of victims of acid attack, observed that the responsibility for such treatment lies upon the State. The Division Bench directed the State Government to ensure that immediate specialised medical treatment is provided to the victims of acid attack in the hospitals recommended by the Medical Board in its report. It was further observed that, instead of disbursing money directly to the victims, the State Government may pay the expenses of treatment directly to the concerned hospital and shall also provide travelling and lodging expenses to the victims and one attendant accompanying them. 16. In the case of Laxmi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that full responsibility is cast upon the State for bearing all expenses for treatment and rehabilitation of the victim of an acid attack. In the present case, as noted above, the Medical Board has suggested that for improvement of the facial appearance and function of the eyes, the petitioner would require multiple surgeries in multiple stages, which can be performed at Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be provided advanced medical treatment free of cost at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati. Page No.# 9/9 17. Having regard to the settled legal position of law, the findings recorded by the Medical Board and the undisputed fact that the petitioner is a victim of an acid attack who continues to require specialised treatment, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to receive further advanced medical treatment free of cost. 18. Accordingly, the respondent authorities, more particularly the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam, are directed to ensure that the petitioner is provided with all necessary specialised/advanced medical treatment, including multiple surgeries and allied procedures, at Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati, as advised by the treating doctors and the Medical Board. The entire expenditure relating to such treatment, medicines, hospitalisation and other ancillary medical requirements shall be borne by the State Government. The State Government shall also provide and bear the travelling and lodging expenses of the petitioner and one attendant whenever required for the purpose of treatment pursuant to the directions contained herein. The petitioner shall approach the authorities of Gauhati Medical College & Hospital within a period of 10 (ten) days from today and upon such approach being made, the respondent authorities shall take immediate steps for continuation of the treatment process in accordance with the recommendations of the Medical Board. 19. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant