Namaz should be offered in mosques, not on roads: Haryana CM on Gurugram incident

Bhopal, June 7: In a shocking incident of medical cruelty, an 80-year-old man was tied to a hospital bed in Madhya Pradesh after he allegedly failed to make payment of fees for his treatment. The incident took place at the City Hospital in Shajapur.  

The hospital, however, claimed that he was having convulsions and as a result had his hands and legs tied so that he could not hurt himself.

The man’s family members have accused the hospital authorities of resorting to the heinous act after they failed to pay a fee of Rs 11,000 for his treatment at the. 

“We had deposited a bill of Rs 5,000 at the time of admission but when the treatment took a few more days, we did not have the money to pay the bill,” his daughter told the channel.

The hospital, however, maintained that the man was shackled because he was suffering from an electrolyte imbalance. “He was having convulsions because of electrolyte imbalance,” an unidentified doctor said. “We tied him so that he could not hurt himself.” 
The doctor claimed the hospital had waived off the man’s bill on “humanitarian grounds”.

Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan took cognizance of the matter and promised strict action against the hospital authorities. 

The Shajapur administration has also ordered an inquiry and has sent a police team to the hospital for investigation, the district collector told media persons.

Kashmir, Jun 14: An Army personnel was killed and two others were injured as Pakistani troops opened fire and shelled areas along the Line of Control in Poonch district of Jammu and Kashmir, officials said on Sunday.

This is the third fatality in the Pakistani firing and shelling on forward posts and villages in the twin districts of Poonch and Rajouri this month.

The officials said the latest firing and shelling from across the border took place in Shahpur-Kerni sector on Saturday night, drawing strong retaliation by the Indian Army.

Three Indian Army personnel were injured in the Pakistani firing and were immediately evacuated to hospital, where one of them succumbed to injuries, the officials said.

They said the casualties suffered by the Pakistani Army in the retaliatory action were not known immediately.

On June 4, havaldar P Mathiazhagan fell to Pakistani firing in Sunderbani sector of Rajouri district, while on June 10, Naik Gurcharan Singh lost his life in a similar incident in Rajouri sector.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.