Tribune Information Service
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, February 23
The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has made it clear {that a} affected person can’t be subjected to discrimination on the idea of her place of residence. The Bench additionally made it clear that denying therapy to a affected person by a authorities hospital in Chandigarh for being an outsider violated her proper to life and liberty.
The assertion by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat got here on a petition by a five-month pregnant lady alleging denial of medical therapy on the grounds that she was a Punjab resident and sufferers from exterior Chandigarh couldn’t get therapy on the GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh.
Showing earlier than Justice Sehrawat’s Bench on the affected person’s behalf, counsel Ashdeep Singh submitted that she was turned out from the hospital on February 10 and refused therapy “on the grounds that she was not a resident of the UT”. The counsel submitted that there was no such regulation underneath which the federal government hospitals within the UT might deny the power of therapy to the petitioner within the regular course solely on the grounds that she was not a UT resident.
Taking over the matter, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat asserted that even the counsel for the respondent (UT) couldn’t level out any regulation, which entitled the respondent hospital to drive out the sufferers by denying them medical therapy solely as a result of they weren’t UT residents.
“In any other case additionally, the petitioner can’t be subjected to discrimination solely on the grounds of her place of residence. That, in actual fact, is a direct violation of a elementary proper of the petitioner. Denying her therapy on the stated grounds additionally violates her proper to life and liberty with out there being any justifiable cause,” Justice Sehrawat additional asserted
In his detailed order, Justice Sehrawat added that such a call and even the tendency of a authorities medical facility couldn’t be countenanced by any means. As such, the respondent hospital deserved a course to supply the required therapy/recommendation within the regular course as and when the petitioner approached it.
“Accordingly, the current petition is disposed of with a course to the respondents to supply the required medical therapy/recommendation to the petitioner within the regular course as and when she approaches the respondent hospital. The counsel for the UT is requested to take the petitioner right this moment itself to the hospital and make sure that the required therapy is began with rapid impact,” Justice Sehrawat added.
#gmsh-16
