Ranbir Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petition contains a prayer for a mandamus for issuance of a direction to the respondent to continue the treatment of

cancer disease of the minor daughter of petitioner, who is in the 6th standard. The petitioner seeks for enforcement of the Social Health

Programme announced by the State under which any cancer patient, who is a student in a Government and Government aided school, is entitled to

free treatment in the hospital. The petitioner''s grievance is that the 4th respondent-hospital namely Mohan Devi Oswal Cancer Hospital at

Ludhiana has turned the petitioner away from treatment on the ground that reimbursements from the State have not arrived for the bills so far raised

by them. The counsel for the 4th respondent states that they are not stopping treatment of the petitioner''s child, who is a cancer patient. This

statement of the 4th respondent is recorded and if, the petitioner takes the child to the 4th respondent hospital, it shall not avail to the 4th

respondent to deny treatment and if any, further complaint persists, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Court for taking action for

disobedience of the order and violation of the undertaking given by the party through the lawfully constituted Attorney, who appears before this

Court.

The offer of the State to provide for free assistance itself has had some history. There was a writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation by

Cancer Peerat Kissan Committee before this Court in C.W.P. No. 11425 of 2005. The petitioners were attempting to project the misery that had

fallen on the farmers of Muktsar and Bathinda districts by the prevalent use of insecticides and the serious health hazards that they were facing,

particularly by a high incidence of cancer. The case came to be decided on securing a High Powered Committee''s findings about the possible

causes of such cancer spread. The arguments appeared to have been held at length before a Division Bench of this Court and the case concluded

after consideration of an additional affidavit filed by the State through the Joint Director Health. Responding to the Court''s directives, the Joint

Director had informed the Court that several steps had been taken by the Government to combat the menace of cancer. The responses included

setting up of Regional Cancer Centres, improvement of infrastructure for early detection and treatment of cancer patients particularly of persons

that fell below the poverty line, setting up additional resources for treatment planning systems, etc. It was hoped at that time that subject to

availability of funds from the Government or the National Cancer Control Programme, necessary facilities would be upgraded and augmented from

time to time. The State counsel had assured the Court at that time that the State Government was concerned about the growing incidence of cancer

and its effects. They were planning several strategies to arrest the spread of the disease. The Court closed with an observation that it was not

necessary to monitor the State initiatives any further and hoped that the State Government would continue with its endeavour to take preventive

measures to curb the onset of cancer disease and engage in several public awareness programmes. The medical assistance for treatment of cancer

patients is, I believe, one of such important initiatives.

The 4th respondent has a serious grievance that the State is not releasing the expenses, which they have incurred, although, in terms of the State

policy, the Government is bound to make such reimbursement. The State has also filed counter admitting that the 4th respondent hospital has been

empanelled as a hospital where Cancer treatment would be given. The State has filed a consent letter of the hospital to undertake treatment and

given an estimate that the expenses would be approx. 50 lacs per year. It is only expected that the State must respond to the hospitals demand that

is made with the sensitivity as the situation warrants. The hospital will have its own remedies against the State but it shall never be heard in the

portals of the Courts that a hospital that declares its activities as charitable and which obtains several favours from the State on such posturing

cannot give treatment since the Government has not provided the reimbursement. It is in the act of service without looking for an immediate

recompense that the quality of service itself becomes transcendental.

The Clinical Establishment (Registration & Regulation) Act, 2010 seeks to address a situation where every hospital shall be required to have

emergency services. But the Act itself is not applicable in the State of Punjab. We will have to only turn to the Medical Council Regulation which

sets the tone for professional conduct and ethics of medical practitioners. The ethical code exhorts that every physician upholds the dignity and

honour of his profession with prime objectives of rendering services to humanity, and rewards or financial gains would be subordinate. Though a

physician is not bound to treat every person asking for his services, he should not only be ever ready to respond to the calls of the sick and the

injured, but should be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility he discharges in the course of his professional duties. Of

what use are all these exhortations, if the hospital shall turn out a cancer patient for its inability to obtain reimbursement from State Of what

conviction do we make of the State health policy if, lofty announcements made with fanfare, get mired in administrative red tape and poor fiscal

planning that makes it difficult for the State to redeem the promised assistance Let the hospital be shamed by what it failed to do and let the State

wake up to the idea that improvement of public health is a constitutionally cherished goal under Article 47. This order is directed to be sent to the

Minister of Health for the State of Punjab and the State Secretary concerned, so that yet another patient does not come to Court wailing for

assistance and the State may have sufficient unction to move their health policies on even keel. With these observations, the writ petition is

disposed of.