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

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...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...