Udupi, August 15: Residents of Gerukatte in Perampalli in the city staged a protest keeping the body of a dalit youth who died of alleged negligence of the district government hospital authorities, in front of his house on Wednesday.
The victim is identified as Bhaskar (36), son of Narsi and late Gopal of Gerukatte. Bhaskar who was suffering from kidney problem, was got treatment from the hospital two days ago. But the doctor said that his health problem was not serious and treated him. But yesterday, the problem was aggravated and suddenly, he was admitted to the hospital’, said Nagaraj, brother of Bhaskar.
“The doctors said that he was referred to Wenlock hospital of Mangaluru as there was no facility for the treatment at the district hospital. Followed by their advice, they have shifted him to Wenlock hospital. There also, they did not get bed at the ICU and the doctors asked us to take him to a private hospital. Later, he died on the way to Manipal hospital”, he said.
Demand for compensation
Family members and local people led by Ambalpady Umesh of Dalit Sangharsha Samithi staged a protest keeping the body in front of the deceased house, demanding suitable compensation to the family of the victim and required facilities at the Udupi district hospital.
‘The deputy commissioner should conduct an enquiry into the negligence of the district hospital. Such problem should not happen to any others in future. Like Wenlock hospital, all facilities should be provided at the district hospital. This would ensure justice to the death of Bhaskar and poor people would be benefited, said Uday Kumar.
Bhaskar died because he did not get treatment in time at the district hospital. Instead of advising the family members to take him to Manipal hospital, the doctors have asked them to take him to Mangaluru hospital which is far away from Udupi, he said.
This is second death in two years
Family members of the deceased Bhaskar alleged that two years ago, his brother Harish (32), who was suffering from same problem, was also died due to the negligence of the doctors. Now, Bhaskar complained of the same problem, they have tried to get him good treatment and appealed the deputy commissioner on August 14 to ensure suitable treatment.
Within two years, the poor family has lost two members. Among seven children, three members are there and they are living in a thatched hut. The government should immediately disburse the compensation to the poor family, the local people demanded.


Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
