SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Online)(SC) 56

SUPREME COURT
M.M. Punchhi, J
P. B. K. M. Samity v. State of W.B.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1993



Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Shri Muralidhar
For the Respondents: Shri Rajeev Dhavan

State hospitals must provide timely medical treatment; failure constitutes a breach of the right to life under Article 21.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to life and medical treatment - Obligation of the State to provide timely medical assistance in hospitals to preserve human life; failure to do so results in breach of fundamental rights - Emergency medical facilities must be adequately equipped and responsive to patient needs and conditions. (Paras 1 to 9, 15, 16)

(B) Public Health - Government Hospitals - The petition highlighted the lack of facilities in State-run hospitals and raised issues regarding the denial of admission to emergency patients - Several State hospitals' failures led to the eventual need for compensation for denial of treatment. (Paras 2 to 10, 15)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed after Hakim Seikh experienced a serious fall and was denied timely medical treatment across multiple Government hospitals in Calcutta, which violated his fundamental right to treatment.

Findings of Court:
Denial of treatment by Government hospitals constituted a violation of the right to life under Article 21; appropriate compensation was awarded amounting to Rs. 25,000, with directions for ameliorative measures to improve emergency health services.

Issues: Primary questions included whether the non-admission of Hakim Seikh constituted a violation of his constitutional rights and the responsibilities of the State hospitals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure of State hospitals to provide adequate medical care to an individual in need constitutes a breach of the right to life, thereby obligating them to ensure no patient is denied emergency medical assistance.

Result: Writ petition allowed; directions issued for remedial measures and compensation awarded.

1 In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India 1989 (4) SCC 286 ) 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 doctors in that regard. This petition, filed under Art.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 of 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 Seikh 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 hut 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 emergency case which 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 altitude 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 and Others and it has been submitted that the expression 'consumer' as defined in S.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 S.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. Shantha, 1995 (6) SCC 651). In view of the said decision the only question which need

































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top