Govt. hospital denying medical treatment citing place of residence impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday observed that the government hospitals cannot deny medical treatment to individuals on the ground that they are not a resident of the area where the hospital is located [Arti Devi v. UT Chandigarh and Others]..Single-Judge Justice Rajbir Sehrawat held that such an act would amount to denial of fundamental right to life and liberty of the concerned individual. "Petitioner cannot be subjected to discrimination only on the ground of her place of residence. That, in fact, is a direct violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner. Denying her treatment on the above said ground also violates her the right to life and liberty without there being any justifiable reason," the Court said.The Court was hearing a petition moved by a five-month pregnant woman seeking directions to a government hospital to provide medical treatment to her..It was the case of the petitioner-woman that she was denied treatment by the hospital on the ground that she is a resident of Punjab and not of Chandigarh, where the said hospital is located.Advocate Ashdeep Singh appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner had approached the hospital to get treatment since she was pregnant. It was stated that she was even registered as a patient at the hospital for treatment.However, later, the petitioner was refused the treatment on the ground that she was not a resident of the Union Territory of Chandigarh (location of the hospital).Singh submitted that there is no law under which the government hospitals in the Union Territory could have denied the facility of treatment to the petitioner, in normal course, only on the ground that she was not resident of the place where the hospital is located..The Court noted that the counsel for the respondents was not able to highlight any law, which entitles a government hospital to reject treatment to patients only because they are not residents of the place where the hospital is located. The same would amount to violation of fundamental right to life and liberty and would also be discriminatory. Therefore, the Court has directed the hospital to provide necessary treatment/advice, in normal course, as and when the petitioner-woman approaches the hospital.Lastly, while disposing of the petition, the Court requested the counsel for the Union Territory of Chandigarh to take the petitioner to the hospital and to ensure that the necessary treatment of the petitioner is started with immediate effect..Assistant Government Pleader Aditya Pal Singla appeared for respondents..[Read Order]