CHAPTER 4 4.26 The Commission took cognizance of the matter and requested its Director General (Investigation) to collect requisite reports from concerned authorities. 4.27 As per the report received from authorities, the incident was inquired into by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadappa. During the course of inquiry, the Magistrate examined the relatives of the deceased and other witnesses including jail officials, prison doctor and co-prisoners. The relatives of the deceased including his mother raised doubts that the deceased was beaten by the jail officials while he was in jail. However, the co-prisoners stated that he was never beaten by the jail authorities. On appraisal of the evidence, the Magistrate discarded the statements of the relatives of the deceased and concluded that the death had occurred due to renal failure. 4.28 The Commission examined the various reports carefully and observed that it would appear from the reports and records made available to the Commission that Chappidi Pavan was suffering from renal disease and he was being treated at the jail hospital ever since he was admitted to the jail. On 16.12.2008, when his condition deteriorated, the jail doctor referred him to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa from where he was further referred to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi where he died on the same day while undergoing the treatment. The Commission expressed the view that it was, prima facie, satisfied that there was negligence on the part of jail authorities in providing timely and adequate treatment to the deceased and for the death of the prisoner the State was liable to compensate. Therefore, the Commission vide its proceedings dated 16.07.2014 directed to issue notice to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to show cause as to why monetary relief u/s 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 be not recommended to the next of kin of deceased Chappidi Pavan @ Lurdharaj @ Pottudu. 4.29 In response to the show cause notice, the State Government contended that there was no negligence in giving treatment to the deceased prisoner and the prisoner was given symptomatic treatment in the jail and he never complained of any serious complications. 4.30 The Commission did not find any merit in the plea of the State Government and made these observations: “The prisoner was a chronic patient of renal failure. The prison authorities were aware of his ailment. Still he was treated in the jail for six months. He was never referred to any specialist during this period. It was only when his condition deteriorated, he was sent to RIMS on 16.12.2008. If the jail authorities had been sensitive, they would have referred him to a Nephrologist to seek an expert opinion. The omission to refer him to a specialist for six months indicates that the jail authorities did not take the ailment seriously. Moreover, the post mortem report shows that there National Human Right Commission Annual Report - 2014-2015 35