MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

No Citizen Should Be Denied Treatment For Lack of Funds: High Court Directs State to Provide Additional Funding for Teacher's Lung Transplant

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Latest Legal News