After Bombay High Court's Rap, Maharashtra Govt Decides To Explore Home Vaccination For Bed-Ridden Without Centre's Nod

Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni that the State would decide on its own, and explore home immunisation on a trial basis, first in Pune District, based on on the State Task Force's Guidelines for Home Vaccination.

"We will provide an email address, inviting mails from all persons and family members, specifically those who are immobile, who want to take the benefit of this exercise," he said, explaining how they planned to begin the experiment. He added that the State hadn't finalised the additional restrictions; however, it would be done at a war footing.

The bench was seized with the PIL filed by advocates Dhruti Kapadia and Kunal Tiwari's  seeking door-to-door immunisation for the elderly above 75 years, the disabled and immobile since April. Earlier the bench has passed several orders, asking the State and Centre to consider the plight of immobile citizens.

Matter to be heard in Chambers

On Wednesday, the Advocate General said that the State administration wanted to address a few concerns regarding home vaccination in the judge's chambers in the presence of the petitioners.

"There are few concerns the administration wants to address regarding After Effects Following Immunization. Whatever I say in open court gets reported in the newspaper. I don't want it to have a panic reaction in the public and misconception about vaccination. It may not be possible to explain what I mean and what I don't mean."

The bench agreed but said that it hopes the State will not insist on one of its proposed conditions which require the immobile patient's treating doctor to sign a document, taking responsibility for the patient in case of After Effects Following Immunization.

"Today, when someone goes to the hospital for a critical operation, the hospital takes an undertaking from the patient. Does the doctor give a declaration that after the critical operation the patient will survive?," the bench observed.

The bench asked the AG if AEFI is really a concern. It cited news reports in the Indian Express to say that 80% to 95% of the eligible population in Tripura has been vaccinated.

"A 99-year-old lady with co-morbidities has been vaccinated in a far off district in Tripura."

The AG said he would make necessary submissions in the judge's chamber's tomorrow.

BACKGROUND

The bench had observed that several lives could have been saved if the Centre had a door-to-door vaccination policy for the elderly and bedridden a few months ago.

The Centre has time and again not only refused to come up with a door-to-door immunisation policy for the elderly, but it has also issued advisories to states against undertaking the same, asking them to implement their Near-to-Door jab policy instead. Moreover, it has declined BMC's proposal in the past and asked the Maharashtra Government to decide if it will undertake door-to-door vaccination by June 22.

Despite the Court's observations that the Central Government has not explicitly prohibited State governments from providing door-to-door vaccination, Maharashtra's Public Health Department's said would begin home vaccination on an experimental basis only after the State and Central Government approves.

However, during Wednesday's hearing the State Government clarified its stand.

State's proposed Conditions For Vaccination include

1. Mandatory medical certificate saying the patient is bed ridden
2. Arrangements to be made for 10 beneficiaries to take vaccination along with the immobile patient to avoid wastage as there are 10 vaccines per vial.
3. Mandatory written consent of all family members.
4. Medical certificate from the patient's treating doctor saying the patient is not likely to suffer from Adverse Effects Following Immunization, and the doctor will take full responsibility for treatment if he does.

[Dhruti Kapadia vs UOI]