Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana 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