CWP No.17239 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17239 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.11.2011 Ranbir Singh son of Nanak Singh resident of House No.2059, Adda Mehatpur, Nakodar District Jalandhar. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Health and Family Welfare Department, National Rules Health Mission, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. R.S. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondents No.1, 2 and 5. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate and Mr. Ankur Ghair, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. IPS Doabia, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? YES 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition contains a prayer for a mandamus for issuance of a direction to the respondent to continue the treatment of cancer disease of the minor daughter of petitioner, CWP No.17239 of 2011 (O&M) [2] who is in the 6th standard. The petitioner seeks for enforcement of the Social Health Programme announced by the State under which any cancer patient, who is a student in a Government and Government aided school, is entitled to free treatment in the hospital. The petitioner’s grievance is that the 4th respondent-hospital namely Mohan Devi Oswal Cancer Hospital at Ludhiana has turned the petitioner away from treatment on the ground that reimbursements from the State have not arrived for the bills so far raised by them. 2. The counsel for the 4th respondent states that they are not stopping treatment of the petitioner's child, who is a cancer patient. This statement of the 4th respondent is recorded and if, the petitioner takes the child to the 4th respondent hospital, it shall not avail to the 4th respondent to deny treatment and if any, further complaint persists, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Court for taking action for disobedience of the order and violation of the undertaking given by the party through the lawfully constituted Attorney, who appears before this Court. 3. The offer of the State to provide for free assistance itself has had some history. There was a writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation by Cancer Peerat Kissan Committee before this Court in C.W.P. No.11425 of 2005. The petitioners were attempting to project the misery that had fallen on the farmers of Muktsar and Bathinda districts by the prevalent use of insecticides and the serious health hazards that they were facing, particularly by a high incidence of cancer. The case came to be decided on securing a High Powered Committee’s findings about the possible causes of such cancer spread. The arguments appeared to have been held at length before a Division Bench of this Court and the case concluded after CWP No.17239 of 2011 (O&M) [3] consideration of an additional affidavit filed by the State through the Joint Director Health. Responding to the Court’s directives, the Joint Director had informed the Court that several steps had been taken by the Government to combat the menace of cancer. The responses included setting up of Regional Cancer Centres, improvement of infrastructure for early detection and treatment of cancer patients particularly of persons that fell below the poverty line, setting up additional resources for treatment planning systems, etc. It was hoped at that time that subject to availability of funds from the Government or the National Cancer Control Programme, necessary facilities would be upgraded and augmented from time to time. The State counsel had assured the Court at that time that the State Government was concerned about the growing incidence of cancer and its effects. They were planning several strategies to arrest the spread of the disease. The Court closed with an observation that it was not necessary to monitor the State initiatives any further and hoped that the State Government would continue with its endeavour to take preventive measures to curb the onset of cancer disease and engage in several public awareness programmes. The medical assistance for treatment of cancer patients is, I believe, one of such important initiatives. 4. The 4th respondent has a serious grievance that the State is not releasing the expenses, which they have incurred, although, in terms of the State policy, the Government is bound to make such reimbursement. The State has also filed counter admitting that the 4th respondent hospital has been empanelled as a hospital where Cancer treatment would be given. The State has filed a consent letter of the hospital to undertake treatment and given an estimate that the expenses would be approx. 50 lacs per year. It is only expected that the State must respond to CWP No.17239 of 2011 (O&M) [4] the hospitals demand that is made with the sensitivity as the situation warrants. The hospital will have its own remedies against the State but it shall never be heard in the portals of the Courts that a hospital that declares its activities as charitable and which obtains several favours from the State on such posturing cannot give treatment since the Government has not provided the reimbursement. It is in the act of service without looking for an immediate recompense that the quality of service itself becomes transcendental. 5. The Clinical Establishment (Registration & Regulation) Act, 2010 seeks to address a situation where every hospital shall be required to have emergency services. But the Act itself is not applicable in the State of Punjab. We will have to only turn to the Medical Council Regulation which sets the tone for professional conduct and ethics of medical practitioners. The ethical code exhorts that every physician upholds the dignity and honour of his profession with prime objectives of rendering services to humanity, and rewards or financial gains would be subordinate. Though a physician is not bound to treat every person asking for his services, he should not only be ever ready to respond to the calls of the sick and the injured, but should be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility he discharges in the course of his professional duties. Of what use are all these exhortations, if the hospital shall turn out a cancer patient for its inability to obtain reimbursement from State? Of what conviction do we make of the State health policy if, lofty announcements made with fanfare, get mired in administrative red tape and poor fiscal planning that makes it difficult for the State to redeem the promised assistance? Let the hospital be shamed by what it failed to do and let the State wake up to the idea that improvement of public health is a constitutionally cherished CWP No.17239 of 2011 (O&M) [5] goal under Article 47. This order is directed to be sent to the Minister of Health for the State of Punjab and the State Secretary concerned, so that yet another patient does not come to Court wailing for assistance and the State may have sufficient unction to move their health policies on even keel. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. NOVEMBER 22, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE