Back
1996(4) Supreme 260
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of West Bengal & Anr. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 796 of 1992
Decided on 6-5-1996
Held : The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at the federal level as well as at the state level. In a welfare state the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare state. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centres which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail those facilities. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of para-mount imortance. The Government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21. (Para 9)
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 21-Medical treatment in Government hospitals-Right of-Petitioner fell off a train and suffered serious head injuries-He was taken to various Health Centres and Government Hospitals in the State-He was not admitted on account of non-availability of bed or non-availability of proper medical facilities etc.-Ultimately he was admitted in a private hospital-He incurred expenditure of Rs. 17,000-Breach of his constitutional right-Award of compensation of Rs. 25,000-State Government to take appropriate administrative action against medical officers found responsible for lapse.
Held : In the present case there was breach of the said right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 when he was denied treatment at the various Goverment hospitals which were approached even though his condition was very serious at that time and he was in need of immediate medical attention. Since the said denial of the right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 was by officers of the State in hospitals run by the State the State cannot avoid its responsibility for such denial of the constitutional right of Hakim Seikh. In respect of deprivation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution the position is well settled that adequate compensation can be awarded by the court for such violation by way of redress in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. Hakim Seikh should, therefore, be suitably compensated for the breach of his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we fix the amount of such compensation at Rs.25,000/-. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was directed to be paid to Hakim Seikh as interim compensation under the orders of this Court dated April 22, 1994. The balance amount should be paid by respondent No.1 to Hakim Seikh within one month. (Para 9)
JUDGMENT
S.C. Agrawal, J.-In Pt. Paramanand Katara v. Union of India & Ors.1, this Court in the context of medico-legal cases, has emphasised the need for rendering immediate medical aid to injured persons to preserve life and the obligations of the State as well as docters in that regard. This petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution raises this issue in the context of availability of facilities in Government hospitals for treatment of persons sustaining serious injuries.
2. Hakim Seikh (Petitioner No. 2) who is a member of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (Petitioner No.1), an organisation of agricultural labourers, fell off a train at Mathurapur Station in West Bengal at about 7.45 P.M. on July 8, 1992. As a result of the said fall Hakim Sekih suffered serious head injuries and brain haemorrhage. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre at Mathurapur. Since necessary facilities for treatment were not available at the Primary Health Centre, the medical officer in charge of the Centre referred him to the Diamond Harbour Sub-Divisional Hospital or any other State hospital for better treatment. Hakim Seikh was taken to N.R.S. Medical College Hospital near Sealdah Railway Station, Calcutta at about 11.45 P.M. on July 8, 1992. The Emergency Medical Officer in the said Hospital, after examining him and after taking two X-ray prints of his skull recommended immediate admission for further treatment. But Hakim Seikh could not be admitted in the said hospital as no vacant bed was available in the Surgical Emergency ward and the regular Surgery Ward was also full. He was thereafter taken to Calcutta Medical College Hospital at about 12.20 A.M. on July 9, 1992 but there also he was not admitted on the ground that no vacant bed was available. He was then taken to Shambhu Nath Pandit Hospital at about 1.00 A.M. on July 9, 1992. He was not admitted in that Hospital and referred to a teaching hospital in the ENT, Neuro Surgeon Department on the ground that the hospital has no ENT Emergency or Neuro Emergency Department. At about 2.00 A.M. on July 9, 1992 he was taken to the Calcutta National Medical College Hospital but there also he was not admitted on account of non-availability of bed. At about 8.00 A.M. on July 9, 1992 he was taken to the Bangur Institute of Neurology but on seeing the CT Scan (which was got done at a private hospital on payment of Rs. 1310/-) it was found that there was haemorrhage condition in the frontal region of the head and that it was an emergenccy case whihc could not be handled in the said Institute. At about 10.00 A.M. on July 9, 1992 he was taken to SSKM Hospital but there also he was not admitted on the ground that the hospital has no facility of neuro surgery. Ultimately he was admitted in Calcutta Medical Research Institute, a private hospital, where he received treatment as an indoor patient from July 9, 1992 to July 22, 1992 and he had incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs. 17,000/- in his treatment.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the indifferent and callous attitude on the part of the medical authorities at the various State run hospitals in Calcutta in providing treatment for the serious injuries sustained by Hakim Seikh the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
4. In the writ petition the petitioners have also assailed the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated December 15, 1989 in Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.2 and it has been submitted that the expression consumer as defined in Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 includes persons getting or eligible for medical treatment in Government hospitals and that the expression services as defined in Section 2(1) (o) of the Act includes services provided in the Government hospitals also. The said question has been considered in the recent decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha3. In view of the said decision the on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
