Bombay high court directs Maharashtra government to ensure that Covid-19 pandemic guidelines are followed by private hospitals

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC), while observing that extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures, directed the state government to

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC), while observing that extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures, directed the state government to provide proper facilities to patients and ensure the upgradation of infrastructure as per the guidelines issued under the Disaster Management Act for Covid-19 as well as non-Covid patients at government and private hospitals amid the pandemic.

HT Image

The observations were made after it took note of a news report about a pregnant woman from Nanded being turned away by a private hospital in Aurangabad late at night as her case papers had been drawn at a government hospital. The woman was forced to return to the government hospital where she delivered her child. The court initiated a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) to ensure that hospitals do not turn away patients regardless of where they were originally admitted.

A division bench of justices SV Gangapurwala and SD Kulkarni, while hearing the suo moto PIL, was informed by amicus curiae (a neutral lawyer appointed by the court) advocate NV Gaware that as per the court’s direction, he inquired about pregnant woman’s incident. In his report, Gaware submitted that the woman had initially got admitted to the government hospital at Aurangabad but left the hospital without informing the authorities.

The woman then approached a private hospital, but after she was unable to provide the case papers drawn up at the government hospital, they turned her away. Gaware submitted that though the woman’s family was willing to pay the hospital charges, the medical facility refused to admit her and that is how the incident came to be reported in the media.

Gaware further submitted that after speaking to the authorities concerned in the government and to private hospitals, he arrived at the conclusion that neither of the hospitals were at fault. He, however, added that after the woman was turned away by the private hospital, she was admitted to the gynaecology department of the government hospital, where she delivered her baby the next morning and the mother and the child were healthy and safe.

After hearing the submissions, the court observed that though the private hospital was not at fault in this case, there had been many complaints about hospitals run by private trusts refusing to admit non-Covid patients. The bench said that there was a clear violation of the May 5 guidelines issued by the government in this regard. Private hospitals were not admitting patients to the 80% regulated beds that had been taken over by the government as per the guidelines issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

In light of these submissions, the court directed the state to not only ensure that private hospitals abide by the guidelines, but also to make sure that proper facilities and upgraded infrastructure was available in government as well as private hospitals, so that no patient – whether seeking admission for Covid-19 or non-Covid treatment or belonging to the middle or poor strata of the society – was turned away.

“We hope and trust that the state and its authorities shall ensure the strict implementation of the guidelines issued from time to time. The state government is duty bound to implement the said guidelines in its true letters and spirit and shall not leave any stone unturned to implement the same,” observed the bench. It disposed of the suo moto PIL after expressing satisfaction with the inquiry.