LEADING JUDGMENTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH IN INDIA

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "LEADING JUDGMENTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH IN INDIA"

Ada Watts
8 years ago
Views:

1 LEADING JUDGMENTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH IN INDIA Dipika Jain Assistant Professor/Assistant Director, Centre for Health Law, Ethics and Technology. Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat India

2 PILs on Public Health? Plethora of cases arising out of PIL s have been filed in order to secure proper health services. Many judgments pronounced in these cases have had a profound effect as they have resulted in effective policy making and better execution of services. PILs have been filed on a wide array of health issues involving fundamental right to health, right to food, reproductive rights, rights of workers to occupational health and safety, right to clean environment, right to adequate drugs, medical negligence, right against medical malpractice, right to emergency health care, HIV/Aids and public health care.

PILs have been filed on a wide array of health issues involving fundamental right to health, right to food, reproductive rights, rights of workers to

3 Initial Recognition of right to health by the Courts: Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi 1981(1) SCC 608. The Indian Supreme Court since 1970 s onwards started reiterated in several of its decisions that the Right to Life guaranteed in Article 21 of the constitution in its true meaning includes the basic right to food, clothing and shelter. More than mere animal existence

The Indian Supreme Court since 1970 s onwards started reiterated in several of its decisions that

4 Bandhua Mukti Morcha etc Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 802 THE Court addressed the types of conditions necessary for enjoyment of health. The Court held that right to live with human dignity also involves right to protection of health

5 Parmanand Katra v. Union of India,(1989)4 SCC 286 The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution where in it requested the Union of India to include a direction where it is made mandatory to treat every injured individual instantly so as to preserve the life and the procedural criminal law should be followed after that so as to prevent any negligent deaths to occur. ISSUES: The issue that was dealt in this case was regarding the moral and professional duties and obligations of a medical practitioner. The court held that every medical practitioner is professionally obligated to treat emergency cases with expertise and cannot refuse to offer treatment to such cases. The government hospitals further cannot refuse any kind of treatment unless it requires more technical expertise that too not without giving primary treatment. It also held that no legal procedures as prescribed under Criminal Procedure Code should act as a hindrance for a doctor to treat an emergency case and hence all the fulfillment of these legal formalities should be a secondary action and that of saving a person s life should be the primary action.

treat every injured individual instantly so as to preserve the life and the procedural criminal law should be followed after that so as to prevent any negligent deaths to occur.

6 Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India(1995)3 SCC 42 The Supreme Court for the first time explicitly held that [t]he right to health... is an integral fact of [a] meaningful right to life. Facts--This case was concerning the occupational health hazards faced by workers in the asbestos industry. Court Held--Reading Article 21 with the relevant directive principles guaranteed in articles 39 (e), 41 and 43, the Supreme Court held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right and it makes the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with the dignity of person. LANDMARK CASE--This recognition established a framework for addressing health concerns within the rubric of public interest litigation and in a series of subsequent cases, the Court held that it is the obligation of the state not only to provide emergency medical services but also to ensure the creation of conditions necessary for good health, including provisions for basic curative and preventive health services and the assurance of healthy living and working conditions.

Court Held--Reading Article 21 with the relevant directive principles guaranteed in articles 39 (e), 41 and 43, the Supreme Court held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right

7 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and Ors., vs. State of West Bengal-1996(4) SCC 37 Facts--In this case, Hakim Sheikh, a member of the Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, fell off a train and suffered serious head injuries. He was brought to a number of state hospitals, including both primary health centres and specialist clinics, for treatment of his injuries. Seven state hospitals were unable to provide emergency treatment for his injuries because of a lack of bed space and trauma and neurological services. He was finally taken to a private hospital where he received his treatment. Feeling aggrieved by the callous and insensitive attitude of the government hospitals in Calcutta in providing emergency treatment the petitioner filed this petition in the Supreme Court and sought compensation. The issue presented to the Court was whether the lack of adequate medical facilities for emergency treatment constituted a denial of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. Court Held--Article 21 of the Constitution casts an obligation on the state to take every measure to preserve life. The Court found that it is the primary duty of a welfare state to ensure that medical facilities are adequate and available to provide treatment and due to the violation of the right to life of the petitioner, compensation was awarded to him. The Court recognized that substantial expenditure was needed to ensure that medical facilities were adequate. However, it held that a state could not avoid this constitutional obligation on account of financial constraints.

He was brought to a number of state hospitals, including both primary health centres and specialist clinics, for treatment of his injuries.

8 Murli Deora v Union of India and Ors, (2001)8 SCC 765 In a public interest litigation, the Supreme Court prohibited smoking in public places in the entire country on the grounds that smoking is injurious to health of passive smokers and issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments as well as the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure prohibiting smoking in all public places such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions, educational institutions, libraries, courts, public offices and public conveyances, including railways.

Governments as well as the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure prohibiting smoking in all public places such as auditoriums,

9 VHAP Vs. Union of India No. 349/2003. Despite a steady rise in the rate of HIV infection, prior to 2004, the Government of India only had an AIDS prevention policy. Treatment was not part of its duty. In 2003, HRLN filed a petition on behalf of the Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (VHAP) calling upon the government to provide free ARV drugs to HIV positive persons. Soon after the petition was filed, the Government announced free ARV drugs for 100,000 people in six high prevalence States: Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, with the objective of providing free anti-retroviral treatment to 100,000 PLHAs by the end of 2005, and to provide treatment to an additional percent of AIDS cases each year, thereafter, for a period of five years.

In 2003, HRLN filed a petition on behalf of the Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (VHAP) calling upon the government to provide free ARV drugs to HIV positive persons.

10 Petition demanded: Provide universal and equal treatment to people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHAs) Supply of free Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) in easily accessible centres Supply CD4 testing machines in every district Supply nutritional supplements to all PLHAs Train medical personnel and counsellors Provide second line drugs to those who have developed resistance to first line drugs Publicise the treatment policy in every corner of the country.

nutritional supplements to all PLHAs Train medical personnel and counsellors Provide second line drugs to those

11 THANK YOU..

12 Right to Health recognition by Courts? The substantive recognition of the right to health as essential to living with human dignity has thus allowed the judiciary to directly address human suffering by guaranteeing the social entitlements and conditions necessary for good health.

living with human dignity has thus allowed the judiciary to directly

Medical Negligence And Our Laws An Overview

Medical Negligence And Our Laws An Overview Vandana Singh* At one time it was thought that the state was mainly concerned with the maintenance of law and order and the protection of life, liberty and property