LexPASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZDOOR SAMIT! versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZDOOR SAMIT!
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
MAY 6, 1996
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, J.J.]
Constitution of India-A1ticle 21--Medical treatment in govemment
hospita/s----Failure of govemment hospitals to provide timely medical assis-
tance to a seriously injured person, held, is violation of the right to life-Direc-
•
tions issued for inune~iate prinia1y treatlnent at Prbnary Health Centres,
upgrading the hospitals at district and sub-divisional level including facilities
for specialist treatment, setting up centralised communication system with
information as to where beds are available for the treatment required, arran-
gements for well equipped ambulance to transport the patient from one hospi-
A
B
c
tal to another, and to be geared to deal with higher risk of accidents on certain D
occasions or reasons-Held further, the state has to meet its constitutional
obligations to provide medical aid and make a/location of funds for medical
services-Further, administrative action to be taken against medical officers
responsible for the /apses-Welfare state-Duties of
Constitution of India-Article 21 and Articles 32 and 226-Compensa-
E
lion-Person sustaining serious injuries denied inunediate medical assistance
at govemment hospitals, held, entitled to compensation-Rs. 25, 000 awarded.
HS, a member of the petitioner-organisation of agricultural
labourers, fell off a train at Mathurapur station in West Bengal At 7.45
p.m. on July 8, 1992. As a result of the fall, he suffered serious head injuries F
and brain heamorrhage. He was thereafter taken from Primary Health
Centre to one government hospital after another. He was not admitted in
any of the hospitals either because it was said that the hospital conld not
handle the emergency, or because no vacant bed was available. Ultimately,
on July 9, 1992, he was admitted into a private hospital, where he received G
treatment an indoor patient till July 22, 1992. He incurred an expenditure
of approximately Rs. 17,000.
Aggrieved by the indifferent and callons attitnde of the medical
authorities at the various state run hospitals in Calcntta, the petitioner-
organisation filed this writ petition.
331
H
332
SUPRHff CO\TRT REPORTS [ l9'!6[ SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
During the pcndency of the petition, the State {;overnment appointed
B
c
a Committee to enquire into the incident, to lix responsibility on the
persons responsible for it, to r1::con1mend action to be taken against them
and to recommend action to be taken by the State Government to rule out
recurrence of such int:idents in the future. The Committee, in its report,
found the version oftht! victin1 largely substantiated and suggested certain
remedial measures. The recommendations of the Committee were accepted
by the State Government and a memorandum dated Au~ust 22, 1995 was
issued wherein certain directions were given dealing \tith patients ap-
proaching health centres/OPD Emergency Departments of hospitals.
The issue before the court "'as about the availability of t8cilities in
government hospitals for treatn1cnt ot pt:rsons sustaining serious injuries.
Allowin~ the petition, this Court
Held : 1. The right under Article 21 was breached when the injured
D
person was denied treatment at the various government hospitals which
were approached even though his condition was very serious at that time
and he was in need of immediate medical attention. [340-GJ
E
F
G
Pt. Paramana11d Katara v. U11in11 uf India, [19891 4 SCC 286, relied
on.
Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to
life of every person. Preservation of human lite is thus of paramount hnpor-
tance. The government hospitals run by the State and the medical ollicer
employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserv-
ing human life. Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide
timely medical treatn1ent to a person in need of such treatment results in
violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21. [340-E-F]
Consumer Unity & Tiust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, referred
to.
2. The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at
the federal level as well as at the state level. 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 whiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.