Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: 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