Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1571
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.VIMALA, J.
Sumathi - Petitioner
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Home Secretary, St.George Fort, Chennai - Respondent
W.P(MD) No.9601 of 2016
Decided on : 17-06-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.Muthukrishnan
For the Respondents: Mr. D.Muruganandam, Addl. Govt. Pleader
The fundamental right to life and medical treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India applies to prisoners, and the State has an obligation to preserve life and consider the prisoner's choice of hospital for medical treatment.
Headnote:
Writ of Mandamus - Prisoner's Medical Treatment - UNICCPR - IPC, PoA Amendment Act, 2015 - Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to permit her husband, a prisoner, to receive medical treatment in a private hospital at her own expense. The 2nd respondent opposes, stating that treatment in a government hospital is sufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The Court finds that the petitioner's husband, a known case of Systemic Hypertension, Diabetus Melitus/Coronary Heart Disease, was discharged from the government hospital but is still under continuous treatment in the prison hospital. The Court acknowledges the petitioner's dissatisfaction with the quality of treatment and grants permission for the prisoner to receive treatment in a private hospital for three days, at the petitioner's expense.
Issues: The main issue is whether the prisoner should be allowed to receive treatment in a private hospital when the government hospital treatment is deemed sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasizes the fundamental right to life and medical treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stating that the deprivation of treatment would amount to additional punishment. It also highlights the obligation of the State to preserve life and the importance of considering the prisoner's choice of hospital for medical treatment.
Final Decision: The Court orders the petitioner's husband to be permitted to take treatment in a private hospital for three days, with the petitioner bearing the expenses and providing escort. The Court also urges the legislature to codify the rights of prisoners.
“All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human persons.” (United Nations – Covenant on Civil and Political rights UNICCPR) The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to permit the petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Durai to take treatment in a private hospital at the cost of the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
Brief Facts:
3. The petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Durai is in custody of the 3rd respondent from 22.03.2016, pursuant to a case registered in Crime No.194 of 2016 in respect of offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and 109 IPC and Sections 3(2)(Va) of PoA Amendment Act, 2015.
3a. The petitioner's husband is aged 49 years. On complaint of chest pain, breathlessness and palpitation, he was admitted in the prison hospital, Trichy and later, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Trichy. This happened on 07.05.2016. He was admitted in the ICU and was given treatment till 19.05.2016. After the completion of treatment, he was taken back to the prison hospital.
3b. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent that her husband, though discharged from the Government Hospital on 19.05.2016, was not completely cured of his problem and therefore, she must be permitted to give treatment to her husband by admitting him in a private hospital at her own expense; as the representation was not considered, this writ petition has been filed.
4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that neither there is a necessity to give any treatment nor there is a necessity to give treatment in the private hospital. Apprehension is also expressed that if permission is granted in this case, similarly placed prisoners may also raise similar demand and that would be causing administrative problems for the jail authorities and therefore, permission should not be granted. It is stated in the counter that the representation of the petitioner was received on 23.05.2015 and her request had been rejected.
4a. Supporting the contention raised in the counter affidavit, learned Additional Government Pleader strenuously opposed the petition on the ground that when the petitioner's husband had been treated in a well equipped Government Hospital and also he is cured of his problem, there is no necessity to give treatment in a private hospital.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband suffered sudden chest pain on 07.05.2016 and having taken treatment at Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Trichy, he was discharged on 19.05.2016. It is an admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner's husband is known case of Systemic Hypertension, Diabetus Melitus/Coronary Heart Disease and he is stated to be stable, but on medication.
6. Therefore, the only question is whether he must be allowed to take treatment in the Government Hospital or in the private hospital.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's wife had serious dissatisfaction regarding the nature and quality of treatment and that is why she has come forward with the request to admit her husband in the private hospital. This apprehension has to be understood in the light of the defence taken and the actual state of affairs. Even though it is alleged that the petitioner's husband was discharged after recovery, in the counter itself, it is stated that still he is kept in the prison hospital for continuous treatment. Under such circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner cannot be discarded, as baseless.
8. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the competency of Government Doctors cannot be underestimated and therefore, there is no necessity to send the prisoner for private treatment.
8a. The contention that the compe
