Delhi HC orders govt to reimburse minor denied treatment at hospitals

Delhi HC directs Delhi govt to pay Rs 12,000 to a minor denied treatment at two govt hospitals for an arm fracture. The court held the failure to provide care violated the state's obligation to safeguard the fundamental right to life.

The Delhi High Court has directed the government of NCT of Delhi to reimburse medical expenses of Rs 12,000 to a minor who was denied treatment at two government hospitals, holding that the failure to provide timely medical care violated the State's obligation to safeguard the right to life.

Passing the order, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the government to make the payment within two months. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue a separate civil suit for compensation.

Background of the Incident

The case arose after the petitioner, a minor student, suffered a fracture in his left arm while playing at a government school. He was first taken to Dr. Hedgewar Aarogya Sansthan, where treatment could not be provided due to the non-availability of basic medical supplies. He was then taken to Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya, but was allegedly denied treatment as no doctor was available at the time. Due to the refusal of treatment at both government hospitals, the petitioner had to seek care at a private hospital, incurring expenses of around Rs 14,000.

State's Failure and Legal Precedent

Notably, the respondents admitted that the petitioner had visited both hospitals and that treatment was not provided. The Court observed that this failure remained undisputed.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity vs State of West Bengal, the High Court reiterated that providing timely medical treatment is an essential obligation of the State under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any denial of such treatment amounts to a violation of the right to life.

In view of these principles and the admitted facts, the Court held that reimbursement of medical expenses was justified. However, it clarified that claims for additional compensation would require adjudication through a civil suit, especially where disputed questions of fact arise.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)