nipun (student) 29 September 2016

Supreme court citations for child permanently disabled

Hello friends ,

I have completed my law & company secretary and practising as advocate at MP High Court.

A case came to my senior in which petitioner is suing state of m.p. for negligence & making his two childs permanently disabled.

Brief facts of case are : Two childs of petitioner was unable to hear , doctors at hospital told petitioner they will be completely okay if they undergo operation which is subsequently confirmed with two other hosptials.

Cost of operation was around Rs. 6 lakhs for each child , as petitioner was poor he requested the C.M. of M.P. who approved the cost of operation to be borne by state.

Cheque of Rs. 12 lakhs was given by authority in the name of that hospital in which both child were admitted but it got bounced and hospital conveyed the same to the petitioner.

Now after many requests to authority they issued DD inn favour of hospital but now hospital stated that as certain age of the childs are passed they cannot be operated anymore which ultimately resulted into permanent disability because of negligence of state authority.

Now petitioner is suing and case is at high court , as i just begin my law practice I want to work hard on each and every case so i need seniors advice please give me some supreme court judgement related to my case as i searched for that but not able to get.

Closest which i got was Rama vs Utar Haryana Case law

Your help will be very much appreciated.

Reply Follow

2 Replies

nipun (student) 01 October 2016

Can anyone please reply?

lonely_man (Research) 03 October 2016

See if this can be of any use to you.

Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) vs Union Of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 7279/2013, 17 April, 2014, Delhi High Court.

In the opinion of this Court, Article 21 of the Constitution clearly imposes a duty on the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that everyone has access to health facilities, goods and services so that they can enjoy, as soon as possible, the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. By virtue of Article 21 of the Constitution, the State is under a legal obligation to ensure access to life saving drugs to patients. A reasonable and equitable access to life saving medicines is critical to promoting and protecting the right to health. This means that Government must at the bare minimum ensure that individuals have access to essential medicines even for rare diseases like enzyme replacement for Gaucher disease. Availability of a very expensive drug virtually makes it inaccessible.

69. Government cannot cite financial crunch as a reason not to fulfil its obligation to ensure access of medicines or to adopt a plan of action to treat rare diseases. In the opinion of this Court, no government can wriggle out of its core obligation of ensuring the right of access to health facilities for vulnerable and marginalized section of society, like the petitioner by stating that it cannot afford to provide treatment for rare and chronic diseases.