The Delhi government was recently ordered by the Delhi High Court to respond to a lawsuit for compensation and reimbursement of medical costs for a little boy who was not given timely care at two government-run hospitals because basic medical supplies and doctors were not available. This case brings to light important problems with the public healthcare system as well as the basic right to health.
The Delhi government has been ordered by Justice Subramonium Prasad to provide a status report on the case in ten days. It is anticipated that this research will shed light on the circumstances that exist in other Delhi government-run hospitals. The court’s order to assess the overall condition of healthcare institutions emphasizes the urgency and gravity of the situation.
The incident in question happened on April 1, when Aditya Kumar, a Class III student at the Nigam Pratibha Vidyalaya in Kakardooma, which is managed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, collapsed while playing and broke his arm. The principal of the school immediately brought him to the Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan emergency department at Kakardooma. However, because basic medical supplies like cotton swabs were unavailable, Aditya was sent to a higher center by the attending physicians rather of obtaining emergency care. This shortfall was glaringly obvious from the note on the emergency card, which pointed to a serious flaw in the hospital’s emergency response protocol.
Aditya’s father then drove him to Geeta Colony’s Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya. The youngster was also refused treatment in this instance because, at 5:30 p.m., doctors don’t usually stay at the hospital until 3:00 p.m. This highlights yet another serious problem with the public health system: hospitals are meant to be emergency rooms, and they do not provide round-the-clock medical care.
Aditya’s arm was eventually glued at 12:30 a.m., more than seven hours after the incident, at a private hospital after his father drove him there out of desperation and ran out of options. In addition to causing the boy great agony and grief, this delay increased the possibility of complications that may have been prevented with early intervention.
This private hospital visit came at a significant financial cost to Aditya’s family. In order to pay for the medical bills, his mother—a maid—had to borrow ₹12,000 from her workplace. This sum, despite its seeming modesty, is a substantial financial burden for a low-income household, underscoring the differences in healthcare access according to socioeconomic level.
The two government-run hospitals’ actions were characterized as “illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unethical, and in violation of the fundamental right to health” in the appeal that lawyer Ashok Aggarwal filed. According to the petition, the institutions’ unwillingness to treat Aditya because they were out of doctors and essential medical supplies amounted to criminal negligence. The boy’s physical anguish was made worse by this carelessness, but it also imposed an undue financial burden on his family.
SOURCE:
MEDICAL DIALOGUES
