No Citizen Should Be Denied Treatment For Lack of Funds: High Court Directs State to Provide Additional Funding for Teacher’s Lung Transplant
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati upheld the entitlement to health as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, directing the state to ensure additional funding for a school teacher’s lung transplantation surgery. Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad emphasized that “no citizen should be denied treatment for the lack of funds,” particularly in cases involving rare diseases.
Legal Context and Petition
The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by A. Siva Kumari, a school teacher diagnosed with end-stage Interstitial Lung Disease, seeking a mandamus for advance funding of 90% of the estimated expenses for her lung transplant. The petition highlighted the denial of her request by state authorities as unconstitutional, illegal, and arbitrary.
Factual Background
Kumari, acclaimed with several best-teacher awards including one from the then President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, faced a severe health crisis necessitating immediate lung transplantation. Despite provisions under two Office Memorandums from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare promising financial aid, only a fraction of the required amount was sanctioned by the authorities.
Judicial Assessment
Delving into the merits of the case, the court referenced several precedents asserting the state’s obligation to finance healthcare, especially for rare diseases. The bench pointed out a stark “mismatch” between the medical estimates provided by KIMS Hospital at Rs. 70,00,000 and what was sanctioned—merely Rs. 20,00,000.
Decision and Directions
Justice Prasad ordered the state to issue an immediate additional sum of Rs. 25,00,000, aligning the total state contribution to Rs. 45,00,000 towards the lung transplantation surgery at Apollo Hospital, which presented a lower estimate. The directive also included post-operative costs, emphasizing the role of the government in not just relying on its resources but also fostering public and private contributions to fill the funding gap.
Conclusion
The ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s role in protecting citizens’ rights to health and timely medical intervention under the constitutional framework. It underscores the responsibility of the state to act beyond its financial constraints and ensure that life-saving treatments are not a privilege of the affluent.
Date of Decision: May 1, 2024
A Siva Kumari vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
