9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Obligation of IMCL to provide free medical treatment under the lease agreement. 2. Interpretation of the terms "free medical, diagnostic and other necessary facilities." 3. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private entity performing public duties. 4. Right to health as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Compliance with the terms of the agreement by IMCL. 6. Role of non-state actors in providing public health services. Detailed Analysis: 1. Obligation of IMCL to Provide Free Medical Treatment: The court examined the lease agreement dated 16th March 1994 between the GNCTD and IMCL, which mandated IMCL to provide free medical treatment to 1/3rd of indoor patients and 40% of outdoor patients. The obligation was established to ensure that the poor and needy citizens received free medical treatment, aligning with Articles 21, 39(e), 41, and 47 of the Constitution of India. 2. Interpretation of the Terms "Free Medical, Diagnostic and Other Necessary Facilities": The court interpreted the terms "free medical, diagnostic and other necessary facilities" to include all aspects of medical treatment, including medicines and consumables. The court emphasized that the agreement's purpose was to provide comprehensive free treatment to the poor and vulnerable sections of society. The court rejected IMCL's argument that the term did not include medicines and consumables, stating that such an interpretation would defeat the agreement's purpose. 3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Against a Private Entity Performing Public Duties: The court held that the writ petition was maintainable against IMCL, a private entity performing public duties. The court referenced several judgments, including Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru SMVSJM Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, which established that writs could be issued to any person or body performing a public function. The court concluded that IMCL, by agreeing to provide free medical services, had taken on the mantle of a state instrumentality. 4. Right to Health as a Fundamental Right Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The court reiterated that the right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, which recognized the right to health as integral to the right to life. The court emphasized that the state has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical services to the people. 5. Compliance with the Terms of the Agreement by IMCL: The court noted that IMCL had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, as evidenced by reports from various committees. The reports highlighted several deficiencies, including inadequate provision of free beds, discriminatory treatment of free patients, and lack of proper records. The court directed IMCL to comply with the agreement's terms and provide free treatment to 1/3rd of indoor patients and 40% of outdoor patients. 6. Role of Non-State Actors in Providing Public Health Services: The court discussed the role of non-state actors in providing public health services, referencing international instruments and guidelines. It emphasized that private entities involved in public health must comply with accepted health and human rights standards. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that private healthcare providers fulfill their obligations to provide free medical services as mandated by agreements with the state. Directions Issued: 1. IMCL to provide 1/3rd of free beds (200 beds) with adequate facilities to indoor patients and free facilities to 40% of outdoor patients. 2. Establishment of Special Referral Centres in government hospitals for referring patients to IMCL for free treatment. 3. Proper identification and classification of persons entitled to free treatment. 4. IMCL to maintain records of free and paid treatments, subject to inspection and audit. 5. Quarterly reports by IMCL on free treatment provided, to be audited by the Principal Secretary (Health)/DGHS. Costs: IMCL was directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as costs, to be shared equally between the petitioner and GNCTD.
|
