The Bombay High Court recently heard a PIL. Here, a pregnant woman was denied admission at JJ Hospital for not carrying Covid-19 report. The Municipal Corporation had informed, the Court, that more than 10,000 deliveries took place since March 2020.
Issue
Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SS Shinde analysed the reply submitted by MCGM. They observed, that the State had complied with the previous orders of the Court. The lawyer in this case is Mohiuddin Vaid. Here, the PIL cites a media report. It states that an expecting lady was refused admission at JJ Hospital, Mumbai. They were denied on the ground that she did not carry a negative Covid-19 report.
Subsequently, she was denied admission at Dholkawala Hospital. After that, an old lady helped her to deliver a child. Petitioner, sought directions from the Court to, direct the State and MCGM to issue a circular binding on the hospitals. The circular is supposed to regulate the admission of patients during the current pandemic.
Previous Decision of the Court
The Court directed MCGM to file a reply affidavit indicating the names and details of maternity homes and clinics along with the number of deliveries in such maternity homes over the past couple of months. Thus, two affidavits-in-reply were filed.
One by the Corporation and the other by the State. The State said that no details of the alleged lady are available with JJ Hospital. Thus, it is difficult for the authorities to furnish a specific reply concerning the PIL. The State took a stand that there was no slip on its part to attend to expecting ladies. The State also informed that JJ Hospital is a non-COVID hospital.
MCGM’s reply affidavit described that there were 3905 deliveries in March, 4169 deliveries in April and 2412 deliveries till the date of affirmation of the affidavit of which about 359 patients tested positive for Covid-19.
Court’s Observation
After studying the said affidavits, the Court observed-
“Based on the above circumstances, we record our satisfaction. The Corporation and the State have lived up to the expectations, especially of expecting ladies. The number of deliveries performed during the past three months provides reason to hold that the contentions urged by Mr Sakhare and Ms Chavan are sound. There has not been any reported incident of negligence that calls for judicial intervention on this PIL petition.”
Court’s Decision
The Court stated that the Corporation should explore new possibilities. That, it should provide an exclusive helpline for expecting ladies.
The Court disposed of the PIL petition. It expects the State and Corporation to continue in its efforts for maximum care of expecting ladies.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
