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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...