The national press this morning has given wide coverage to a news which has been given due importance it deserves. The news is all about a tragic case of a person who is an important functionary of the Central Government and a cancer victim. His case is before the Consumer Redressal Commission, Maharastra. His plea before the Commission is very interesting. Before going into the details and merits of his case. Let us examine the question of the dimension of the problem of consumption of tobacco and its direct correlation with cancer. It has been established beyond any shade of doubt that the tobacco contains carcinogen and is directly responsible for causing cancer especially of oral kind.

But the most painful reality is that despite regular drives and endless campaigns to educate the masses about the destructively harmful effects of tobacco consumption, there is very little progress in this direction. Even stringent statutory measures to ban smoking at public places have not produced the salutary effect. While developed countries have succeeded in reducing in curbing consumption of tobacco and thereby reducing the incidence of cancer caused by this carcinogenic agent in a significant. The Third World countries have registered an alarming growth in it. What is particularly disconcerting is that this consumption habit cuts across all lines. That a well-educated important functionary has fallen prey to this dreaded disease caused by tobacco smoking tells its own story very eloquently!!

Now coming to the case which is before the Consumer Redressal Commission, the institution where Mr. Kumar ,an Assistant Commissioner is fighting his case. The facts run like this. That he took to smoking at the age of 16 and now he is 59 of a particular brand of cigarette the packet of which did not bear the “Statutory Warning” as in those days no such statutory compulsion was there for the tobacco companies to comply with. As a result he had throat cancer and had his larynx surgically removed and now he needs a prosthetic device for breathing which, to avoid infections, needs periodical replacement at a cost of Rs 20000 to 15000!! He has a demanded a claim of Rs 1 crore by way of compensation against the tobacco company.

Whatever may be the fate of this case and setting aside the human aspect of this case. Is it possible to believe that a person of Mr. Kumar's educational attainments needed a warning on the cigarette packet to be informed of the deadly consequences of smoking cigarettes? Or he is deluding himself?