Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, April 28, 2024

Person Suffering From Covid-19 Cannot Be Expected To Produce Proof For Free Treatment In Hospital Under EWS Category: Bombay HC

Posted in: medico Legal
Sun, Jun 28, 20, 13:59, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 1 - hits: 66657
Abdul Shoeb Shaikh v/s K.J. Somaiya Hospital that a person suffering from Covid-19 who belongs to the economically weaker section of the society cannot be expected to produce documentary proof before seeking admission in a hospital for free treatment

In a big respite for Covid-19 patients which has ostensibly given them a good and genuine reason to smile is the recent, remarkable and righteous decision delivered by the Bombay High Court just recently on June 26, 2020 in Abdul Shoeb Shaikh and Ors. Vs. K.J. Somaiya Hospital and Research Center and Ors. in WP-LD-VC No. 54 of 2020 in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction and which was conducted in chamber - video conference observed categorically in no uncertain terms that a person suffering from Covid-19 who belongs to the economically weaker section of the society cannot be expected to produce documentary proof before seeking admission in a hospital for free treatment. It must be mentioned here that a Division Bench of Bombay High Court of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice Madhav Jamdar were hearing via video conference a writ petition filed by seven residents of a slum rehabilitation building in Bandra who were charged Rs. 12.5 lakh by KJ Somaiya hospital for Covid-19 treatment in April. No wonder that the petitioners ultimately got the respite which they so desperately wanted from the Bombay High Court!

To start with, the ball is set rolling first and foremost in para 1 wherein it is observed that, We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. The undisputed position in the matter is that the Scheme prescribed under Section 41AA of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act empowering the Charity Commissioner and the State Government to issue directions in respect of hospitals to earmark certain beds for weaker sections of the people under Section 41AA(4)(c) and for indigent person under Section 41AA(4)(b) is applicable to the respondent no. 1 Trust. One of the question raised by the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that though the respondent no. 1 was required to reserve 10% beds for weaker section of the people and 10% beds for indigent persons out of the operational beds no such beds are provided. Out of 90 beds under those categories which were required to be reserved for the persons belonging to weaker section of the people and indigent persons in toto, all such beds had not been made available. The record indicates that only three patients were admitted by the respondent no. 1 in the month of March 2020 out of 90 beds earmarked for indigent persons and persons belonging to the weaker section of the people under Section 41AA(4)(c) and (b) respectively.

Needless to say, para 2 of the judgment then notes that, It is the case of the respondent no. 1 that the petitioners did not belong to any of these categories nor the petitioners produced any record to prove that the petitioners would fall under those categories. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Dwarkadas, senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 that it was for the petitioners to produce a certificate of income from the Tehsildar or a certificate from the Social Welfare Officer proving income of the petitioners. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners having suffered from a covid-19 and required immediate medical help were not required to produce such certificate at the threshold while seeking admission in the hospital.

To be sure, it is then envisaged in para 3 that, A perusal of the report submitted by the Joint Commissioner indicates that the report submitted is on the basis of documents called for and submitted by the respondent no. 1 and without visiting the premises and inspecting all the records. The affidavit in reply filed by the Charity Commissioner also clearly indicates that only three patients have been treated under the hospital scheme since lockdown till the end of May 2020. Petitioners claims to be staying in slums.

While dwelling on the relevant questions for consideration here, it is then stipulated in para 4 that, Whether it was the duty of the Management of respondent no. 1 to enquire whether the persons seeking admission in the respondent no. 1 hospital were falling under the category of Section 41AA(4)(b) and (c) or not or whether such patients were required to produce at the threshold the certificates of Tehsildar and Social Welfare Officer before seeking admission in the situation faced by the petitioners for patient of covid are some of the questions which require consideration in this matter.

Most crucially, it is then very rightly underscored in para 5 that, In our prima-facie view a person who is suffering from the disease like Covid-19 is not expected to produce a Tehsildar certificate or certificate from Social Welfare Officer before seeking admission in the hospital for seeking benefits under Section 41AA(4)(c) and (d). We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 that unless such certificate is produced by the petitioners at the threshold, the respondent no. 1 is not liable to admit any such patient under those categories in the precarious situation prevailing at the date of admission of the petitioners.

Going forward, it is then also pointed out in para 6 that, We also noticed that the State Government was required to issue a Notification dated 21st May, 2020, providing the rates for treatment of such patients and for other diseases in view of the grievances regarding exorbitant amount of money charged by Healthcare providers causing hardship to public in general during Covid-19 pandemic. Government has also considered the provisions of Section 41AA of the B.P.T. Act in the said notification.

Be it noted, para 8 then states that, Considering the facts of this case, we are directing the respondent no. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,06,205/- in this Court within two weeks from today.

Finally, it is then held in the last para 10 that, This order will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant of this Court. Associate of this Court is permitted to forward the parties copy of this order by e-mail. All concerned to act on digitally signed copy of this order.

To sum up, the Bombay High Court has in a humanitarian gesture very rightly held in this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment that a person suffering from Covid-19 who belongs to the economically weaker section of the society cannot be expected to produce documentary proof before seeking admission in a hospital for free treatment. In such cases, they must be granted exemption from strict rules! This is imperative to ensure that they don't suffer endlessly and end up getting more troubled for getting admitted in a hospital for free treatment!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In 1929 Parliament perceived the need to qualify the child destruction. statute by a provision for preserving the life of the mother, but crassly failed to add a similar exception to the abortion section In 1861
When the Abortion Bill came before the House of Lords, much attention was given to this question.
Formerly it was thought that the vital point of time was fertilisation, the fusior of spermatozoon and ovum, but it is now realised
the paper intends to highlight the need for a concrete legal framework in reference to the recent developments to protect the rights of parties involved in the commercial surrogacy.
This article deals with the introduction of corona virus and it's legal aspects & some laws related to it in India.
incidents of manhandling of Covid patients/dead bodies. What is even more tragic to learn is that this is happening more with those patients who are not able to cough up huge astronomical sum of money as demanded by the hospitals where they are admitted
Ganta Jai Kumar v/s Telangana a medical emergency is not an excuse to trample on the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
dehumanizing treatment of the Covid-19 patients and dead bodies in the hospitals etc after watching it live in India TV news channel as also other news channels especially of LNJP hospital in Delhi which has shaken the whole country beyond belief.
Supreme Court went ahead to allow a woman bearing 25 weeks old twin pregnancy, to undergo procedure for foetal reduction on the grounds of serious foetal abnormalities
Own Motion vs State Of NCT Of Delhi after taking suo motu cognizance of the grievances faced by a citizen
Ketan Tirodkar v/s Maharashtra dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging negligence in management of dead bodies of Covid-19 victims by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Karnajit De vs. Tripura Doctors are the first line defence of the country in the fight against the corona virus. It directed the Government to restore the confidence of the Doctors and para-medical staff and all concerned who are sacrificing their lives to fight against the pandemic.
Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research considerable unexplained delay on the part of drug authorities to test a sample can render any penalty under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, based upon the said analysis of the sample as void.
Bikash Duria vs State of Orissa Instances of drug abuse is required to be dealt with a strict hard on Crime attitude. It was made clear that the NDPS cases should always be dealt with stricter approach of No Tolerance
Own Motion Vs. UOI safety issues faced by the general public due to the non-availability of ventilators and oxygenated beds for Coronavirus patients with moderate and severe conditions in order to reduce the death rate in Nagpur.
Jeet Ram vs. Narcotics Control Bureau Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only in the case of personal search. This the Supreme Court has reiterated unambiguously while affirming the conviction of an accused who was a temple priest.
Hemant Kumar Vs Himachal Pradesh A medical officer who remains willfully absent from duty, is guilty of mis-conduct and punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be a harsh punishment.
RM Arun Swaminathan Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government if the autopsy reports are prepared in a shabby and unscientific manner and without actual performance of autopsies by doctors, it will lead to collapse of criminal justice delivery system in the country.
Tofan Singh vs Tamil Nadu by a 2:1 majority with Justice Indira Banerjee dissenting that officers of the Central and State agencies appointed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
VetIndia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Uttar Pradesh set aside an indefinite blacklisting order issued in the year 2009 against VetIndia Pharmaceuticals Limited.
We all keep hearing the old adages like Where woman is worshipped, God resides there and When you educate a man you educate an individual but when you educate a woman you educate the entire family so on
Dr AKB Sadbhavana Mission School Of Homeo Pharmacy vs The Secretary, Ministry Of AYUSH has minced no words to clarify that homeopathy can be used in preventing and mitigating Covid-19 as per AYUSH ministry guidelines. Thus some observations made by the Kerala High Court were modified on this score
To Curb The Increasing Menace Of Drug Abuse vs Kerala directions to control drug abuse among youngsters and students in educational institutions.
Gurdev Singh v/s Punjab quantity of narcotic substance is a relevant factor that can be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Patan Jamal Vali vs Andhra Pradesh taken the bold initiative to issue guidelines to make criminal justice system more disabled friendly.
Uttar Pradesh vs In Re: Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive upgrading the medical facilities in the state of Uttar Pradesh on a war-scale footing
Vivek Sheel Aggarwal vs UOI It is not for the Court to render advice much less issue directions to the Government on the line of treatment that is required to be followed for COVID
Tripura, Agartala v. UOI, wherein it has directed the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate steps for amending Section 27A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 without further delay.
Sonu Bairwa Vs State of MP & Ors black marketing of remdesivir injection has direct impact on public order, and the petitioner-accused if released, could indulge into same activity because the scarcity of remdesivir is still there.
Not permitting a rape victim, suffering from severe mental problems, to undergo Medical Termination of unwarranted pregnancy would be violative of her bodily integrity which would not only aggravate her mental trauma but would also have devastating effect on her overall health including on psychological and mental aspects.
Jose Luis Quintanilla Sacristan vs UP since a report of State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence (as per the provision of Section 293 CrPC), therefore, there is no requirement to call the Director of that laboratory to get the same proved.
Radhakrishna Pillai v. District Level Authorization Committee for transplantation of Human Organs, Ernakulam criminal antecedents of a person cannot be criteria when it comes to organ donation and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 do not make any such distinction against persons with criminal record.
doctors themselves as also the hospital staff are themselves not safe in our country and are abused, attacked and assaulted by some disgruntled attendants of patients
Ashok Kumar vs Raj Gupta that forcing an unwilling party to undergo DNA test impinges on personal liberty and right to privacy.
Aryan Khan left his home in Mumbai's Bandra to attend a party on board Cordelia Cruises' Empress ship. A two-day 'musical voyage' had been organized by a Delhi-based events company.
Dr.P Basumani vs The Tamil Nadu Medical Council the Madras High Court quashed an order dated May 4, 2021 of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) suspending a gastroenterologist by observing that principles of natural justice were not given credence to.
All India Kamgar General Union vs Union of India Delhi High Court has issued detailed directives to Central Government Hospitals to ensure that no improper and corrupt practices are indulged in by the contractors in respect of engagement of contractual workmen.
Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada vs National Investigation Agency refused to quash an NIA case against Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada, who is allegedly a Dubai-based international drug smuggler, by taking into account the allegations against him of reviving terrorism in the State of Punjab
Mohd Zahid vs State through NCB discretion to direct subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of offences committed.
PD Gupta vs Delhi it expects a little more sensitivity from the Delhi Government when it is dealing with claims for reimbursement of medical expenses of senior citizens who are their own retired employees.
Sandeep Kumar v. Punjab Police on their knuckles for their callously casual approach towards their official duty even when the drug menace has become a deep-rooted in the state of Punjab.
Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri Vs Dr MA Methusethupathi in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction delivered as recently as on April 20, 2022 has laid down in no uncertain terms that merely because doctors could not save the patient
The National Medical Commission vs Pooja Thandu Naresh that the National Medical Commission is not bound to grant provisional registration to the student who has not completed the entire duration of the course from the Foreign Institute including the clinical training.
Aravinth RA vs Secretary To Government Of India Ministry Of Health upheld the validity of Regulations 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021, Schedule II 2(a) and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical Commission
State v. Sheikh Sehzad has released an accused charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act on interim bail while observing that every millisecond of unnecessary detention makes a substantial difference and tantamount to an unwarranted interference with the rights of the accused.
Mohan Singh vs UP allowed the conduct of DNA test in a murder trial as it noted that the same was in the interests of justice to unearth the truthfulness of the prosecution's case.
Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs Syed Basharat Saleem that before prosecuting medical professionals for the offence of criminal negligence, a Criminal Court should obtain opinion of the medical expert
Inayath Ali v/s Telangana allowing DNA testing to determine the paternity of two children to verify a claim made by their mother that she had been forced to cohabit and develop a physical relationship with her brother-in-law.
Davinder Singh Vs Punjab that the drug peddlers have successfully destroyed the social fabric of society and led youth to the wrongful path.
Top