Skip to main content

Surgery for poor man: Indian High Court demands solution

The Delhi High Court Tuesday issued notice to the Centre, city government and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on a plea by a person seeking a direction to the hospital to provide him free treatment costing nearly Rs. 800,000 for Reiter’s disease.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru sought a response from the central and the Delhi government health ministries and the hospital by September 26 while asking them to come up with a solution to the issue.

In his petition, Sarvesh, 38, said he has been left crippled and immobile because of the ailment and urgently needs a total hip-and-knee replacement surgery but being poor he cannot afford it.

His wife, the only earning member in his family, works as a domestic help in Delhi on a meagre salary of Rs4,000 which is insufficient to feed a family of four, and it is thus impossible for him to arrange Rs800,000 for the surgery, he said in his plea.

Sarvesh used to work as a casual labourer before he was immobilised due to Reiter’s disease in 2012. The initial treatment, at AIIMS, stopped the disease from getting aggravated. But his knees and hips remain immobile.

Sarvesh then went to Primus Hospital under the EWS category for hip-and-knee replacement surgery where the doctors referred him to AIIMS saying the surgery involved too many complications and could be performed only at AIIMS.

He was admitted to AIIMS and was given a date for the surgery, May 15. However, the surgery was not performed as he was unable to pay for it.

Sarvesh said he made several representations to the AIIMS authorities, Delhi government and the union health ministry requesting them for free treatment. However, the AIIMS authorities reiterated that the surgery could not be performed until the money was paid.

Appearing for Sarvesh, advocate Ashok Agarwal told the court that this action of AIIMS is “violating his human and fundamental right to life”.

He added that AIIMS being a government hospital is under a constitutional obligation to provide free medical treatment to the poor.

Reiter’s disease, also known as reactive arthritis, is an auto-immune condition that develops in response to an infection in another part of the body.

Article referred: http://post.jagran.com/delhi-high-court-issues-notice-to-centre-aiims-for-refusing-surgery-to-poor-man-1408445593

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even