Delhi High Court Disposes of Petition As Petitioner Dies due to Lack of Vacancy in Hospitals

- Advertisement -

On June 5, 2020, the Supreme Court of India heard the plea of Motiram Goyal. The Plea was to seek direction from the Court for his free treatment and accommodation in a government hospital. The plea, was to also make available ventilators for COVID-19 patients.

Brief Facts of the Case

Goyal was an 80-year-old COVID-19 patient facing denial by several hospitals due to lack of vacancies. He passed away before the Delhi High Court could take up his petition. His plea seeks a direction to the government to accommodate him in a government hospital.

Petitioner’s Submission

Advocate RPS Bhatti filed the petition on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had informed the Court that he fell sick on May 25 and therefore, was taken to Vikas Marg Extension, Delhi. “Due to the negligence of the staff the Petitioner got infected with COVID-19″ the petition stated. His condition began deteriorating after being admitted to the hospital. Hence, he required the aid of a ventilator.

- Advertisement -

The hospital started pressurizing the Petitioner to shift to some other hospital. Furthermore, the authorities mentioned that they could not treat COVID-19 patients due to lack of equipped and expertise. The plea reads, “The Petitioner further approached various hospitals. The list includes Rajiv Gandhi Hospital, AIIMS, Max at Patparganj, Gangaram Hospital, and Apollo Hospital. Each one of them refused to admit the Petitioner stating lack of vacancy.”

Meanwhile, the Vikas Marg hospital kept charging rates which are far beyond reasonable. The Petitioner claimed that he belonged to the BPL category. Hence, the Petitioner sought a direction from the Court for free treatment. Petitioner also asked for accommodation in a government hospital with a ventilator. Later, the counsel for the Petitioner informed the Court that his client had passed away due to the lack of vacancies in hospitals.

Court’s Order

The Delhi HC Held:

“The counsel for the Petitioner submits that unfortunately, the Petitioner has expired. Thus, the petition has to be rendered infructuous. In view of the above, the petition and the application are disposed of “


- Advertisement -

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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.

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

About the Author

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -spot_img