Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

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