The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC) directed the district collectors to take cognisance of complaints received by aggrieved persons against overcharging by ambulance service providers under the Disaster Management Act. The court’s directions came after it was informed that the ambulances provided for the rural population and the needy, as per its instructions, had turned into profiteering by the service providers, though there was a cap on the charges that they could collect from Covid-19 patients.
The directions were given on May 28, when the division bench of justice Ravindra Ghuge and Balchandra Debadwar was hearing the criminal suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) based on news reports of issues pertaining to the shortage of oxygen and Remdesivir, treatment of Mucormycosis, bed management and other Covid-related issues. During the hearing, the bench was informed by amicus curiae Satyajit Bora that new reports pointed to profiteering by ambulance service providers. Bora added that while the state and civic authorities had complied with the court’s directions to provide ambulance services in far-flung rural areas, the ambulances were demanding exorbitant amounts.
During the May 13 hearing, the bench had been informed that ambulances belonging to the state and some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had been deployed to ferry patients to Covid-19 facilities, the rates for which were fixed. The bench had accepted the submission but observed that errant drivers of state ambulances should be dealt with strictly, and slip-ups by drivers of ambulances of NGOs would result in deregistration of the organisations themselves. The court had sought an update of the issue in every hearing.
In the next hearing on May 19, the state informed the bench that it was complying with the court orders and providing ambulance services in rural areas as well as for the needy.
{{/usCountry}}In the next hearing on May 19, the state informed the bench that it was complying with the court orders and providing ambulance services in rural areas as well as for the needy.
{{/usCountry}}However on May 28, Bora drew the attention of the bench to a news report wherein a journalist had interacted with an ambulance driver who was demanding an exorbitant amount to ferry a patient to a Covid Care Centre. The report also pointed out that though rates had been capped, the ambulance driver refused to abide by it and the regional transport authority had not taken cognisance of the reporter’s complaint.
After hearing the submission the bench said, “We are of the view that since the collector of every district is the authority under the Disaster Management Act, all aggrieved patients/their relatives would be at liberty to complain to the district collector if they have suffered such overcharging of ambulance fare. The district collector would deal with such complaints in accordance with the procedure as is laid down.”
The next hearing has been scheduled for June 2.