IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26165 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEKUTTY ABRAHAM, AGED 19 YEARS,S/O.V.T.ABRAHAM, VANIYAPURAKKAL,PERUVANTHANAM P.O., PEERUMEDU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.EGY.N.ELIAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,NEW DELHI. ADDL. 4. THE NATIONAL RURAL HELTH MISSION, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S STATE MISSION DIRECTOR, NRHM BUILDINGS, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.1.2010 IN WPC 26165/09 ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL, CGC FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA FOR R1 & 2 SRI.M.AJAY,SC,NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MIS FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC 11168 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX (WPC 26165/2009) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S SSLC MARK LIST. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.1.1990 ISSUED FROM THE ;DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY AND BLOOK BANK OF CHRISTAIN MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, VELLORE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED 17.3.2006 ISSUED FROM CMC VELLORE EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 14.9.2007 ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL IDUKKI. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN INTERNEST WITH RESPECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.6.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. Nos. 26165 & 11168 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Petitioners in the connected WPCs are patients suffering from Hemophilia. In fact both the petitioners are very young, and while one is going to School, the other is in the College. Besides asking for specific relief to the petitioners, they have asked for general direction to the Government to provide free medical facility for providing treatment to Hemophilia patients all over the State. When this Court noticed that facility was available only at the Medical College Hospitals at Calicut and Trivandrum, and since both the petitioners are residing in Kottayam District and considering the importance of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, this Court directed the Government to provide facility for treatment of Hemophilia patients at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam as well. Pursuant to interim direction, we are informed that facility is made available at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam wherefrom both the petitioners can avail WPC 26165 & 11168/2009 2 facility. It is brought to our notice that large number of people in the State are affected by the disease and necessarily Government has to consider providing of facilities at other Centres in the State as well. We do not know whether Government has any statistics about the number of patients and the places wherefrom they hail. Since long travel itself will affect the patients adversely, we feel as far as possible Government should provide facilities for treatment of Hemophilia patients at least in every District Hospital. There will be direction to the Government to consider statistics pertaining to incidents of Hemophilia in the State and provide facilities at suitable places on preferential basis. 2. The next question raised by petitioners is about the massive cost involved in the treatment which is essentially attributable to the price of the imported drug and the frequency of administration of drug required. In this connection counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPC 11168 of 2009 has referred to the report submitted by the Expert Committee constituted by this Court wherein the judgment of the Delhi High Court is referred to. We notice from the judgment that Delhi WPC 26165 & 11168/2009 3 High Court has fixed tariff for treatment depending upon income level of patients. We do not think it is within our powers to fix tariff and direct the Government to meet the differential cost. In fact like Hemophilia, there are every so many other diseases and situations warranting financial aid to the public. In other words, it is essentially a policy matter to see whether drug at free of cost or at subsidised rate should be given to Hemophilia patients or any similar type or class of patients and whether the same should be extended based on the recurring expenditure for treatment as in this case. However, we make it clear that even a fairly well to do person will be ruined in the course of treatment for a disease of this type. This should certainly be a matter for priority for the Government whether subsidy should be introduced to meet the cost of medicine or to give medicine at subsidised cost to Hemophilia patients. We also direct the Government to consider the report of the Committee constituted by this Court and take all steps within the powers of the State, consistent with the policy to help Hemophilia patients in the State. Copy of the report submitted to this Court by the Expert WPC 26165 & 11168/2009 4 Committee will be annexed to this judgment. W.P.Cs. are disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk WPC 26165 & 11168/2009 5