Treatment to out station patients denied at AIIMS: HC seeks Centre, AAP govt stand
The plea claimed that the patients were earlier receiving treatment at AIIMS, but after the coronavirus pandemic, the hospital has been converted into an COVID-19 exclusive facility and it stopped providing treatment to these patients.
A bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Yogesh Khanna issued notice to the Centre, Delhi government and AIIMS seeking their stand on the plea which also claimed that these patients and their attendants were being housed in 'rain baseras' (night shelters) where social distancing norms were not being maintained.
The lawyers for petitioner Karan Seth, told the bench that many of these patients are suffering from serious ailments, such as cancer, and therefore, their natural immunity was low and they stood the risk of contracting coronavirus if they live in such conditions.
Delhi government, represented by advocate Anupam Srivastava, told the bench that the issue of providing accommodation to these patients was the responsibility of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) and therefore, it should also be made a party in the case.
The court, thereafter, ordered that DUSIB be made a party and issued notice to it also and listed the matter for further hearing on May 8.
It also directed the Centre and Delhi government to "place on record the list of hospitals where these patients could receive treatment for ailments, other than COVID-19, free-of-cost according to their eligibility".
The direction came after the petitioner's lawyers said that assistance through Delhi Arogya Kosh (DAK) is only provided to citizens of the national capital and as these patients hail from other parts of the nation, they may not get free-of cost treatment.
Meanwhile, the AIIMS told the bench that its main facility was not an exclusive COVID-19 facility, and the hospital continues to treat patients with other ailments.
The court asked AIIMS to state in its reply whether these patients could be provided treatment there, as they were receiving earlier.
A direction was also issued to the petitioner to prepare a list of patients in respect of whom the PIL has been preferred.