Gauhati High Court Directs State To Provide Medical Care & Financial Assistance To Girl Who Was Left Bedridden Due To Rare Complication After Vaccine

The Gauhati High Court recently directed the State to pay a monthly stipend at the rate as applicable to unskilled workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to take care of her daily needs and a monthly sum of Rs. 3700/- for engaging a caretaker till her life, to a minor girl who is suffering from Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), a permanent disability, which is a rare complication following any vaccination.

The single judge bench of Justice Devashis Baruah further directed that the State Government to disburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the bank account of the father of the said girl within a period of 30 days.

“It is well established that right to life also includes a right to live with human dignity. This Court also takes note of that the Petitioner is a vegetable vendor and earns a meagre income and taking into account the requirements as per the report for the child of the Petitioner to live a life with dignity, it would not be possible to do so without the aid of the State Government,” Justice Baruah observed.

The facts of the case are that a female child was born to the petitioner at Sipajhar Public Health Centre on November 28, 2010. When the said child was one and half years old, she was administered a vaccine namely DPT-Booster, Measles 2nd OPU-Booster, Vita A 2nd dose at Anganwadi Centre in village Patgiri Chuba under Khash Sonapur Sub-Divisional Health Centre.

Upon administration of the said vaccine, the health condition of the daughter of the Petitioner started to deteriorate and after a while she fainted and her legs buckled under her. Thereafter, she started suffering from high fever and was not able to stand on her legs. The daughter of the petitioner was admitted to the ICU Paediatric Ward of GMCH and underwent treatment for almost three months. However, the petitioner submitted that his daughter was not able to walk and sit and she only lay on the bed till the date of filing the writ petition.

The petitioner through the present writ petition sought adequate compensation from the respondent authorities as it is the case of the petitioner that it was on account of the negligence on the part of the respondent authorities which have resulted in the sufferings that the child of the petitioner has been endured into.

On the other hand, the respondent Health Department had specifically denied any negligence on their part by stating that when the incident was reported, the best available treatment was given to the child of the petitioner and as such it cannot be a case of negligence.

The following issues were before the Court to determine:

1. Whether the permanent disability of the child of the petitioner could have been prevented by the Respondent Health Department?
2. Whether there was medical negligence on the part of the Respondent Health Department which led to the permanent disability of the child of the petitioner?
3. What medical remedial steps are required to be taken for the child of the petitioner to live a life with dignity?

The Court in its order dated April 11, 2023 had appointed a commission to look into the aspect of the medical negligence.

The Commission opined that the petitioner's daughter was given an appropriate vaccine for her age at a proper physical state and proper dose and the immediate post-vaccination symptoms were properly treated by the local physician to the best of his/her capacity and when the child's symptoms increased, she was rightly referred for a specialist opinion first to the Mangaldoi Civil Hospital and then further to the Department of Pediatrics, GMCH, Guwahati.

The Court noted that as per the Commission's report, there was no negligence on the part of the Respondent Health Department which led to the permanent disability of the daughter of the Petitioner.

The Commission further opined that the said child can never lead an independent life in the future consequent to the multiple severe disabilities and then the child of the petitioner would require constant help of a caretaker. It was further opined that the child would need continued evaluation and treatment/rehabilitation training (physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy) to lead a reasonably dignified life.

The Court observed that the Commission's report categorically mentions that the disability of the Petitioner's daughter is 100% and she would require medical assistance in the form of regular medical check-ups, rehabilitation programs and orthotic device supports.

The Court noted:

“It is well established that the right to life also includes a right to live with human dignity. This Court also takes note of that the Petitioner is a vegetable vendor and earns a meagre income and taking into account the requirements as per the report for the child of the Petitioner to live a life with dignity, it would not be possible to do so without the aid of the State Government.”

Thus, the Court directed the Respondent Authorities to take appropriate steps for payment of the monthly stipend at the rate as applicable to unskilled workers to the Petitioner's Bank Account monthly till the Petitioner's daughter attains the age of 18 years and then to the Bank Account of the Petitioner's daughter or her guardian duly appointed under the provisions of law till she survives.

It further directed that the said monthly stipend shall periodically be increased on the basis of subsequent notifications issued enhancing the minimum wages per month of the unskilled workers.

Additionally, an amount of Rs.3,700/- per month be paid to the Petitioner in his Bank Account for the purpose of engaging a caretaker, said the court.

The Court also directed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department to disburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Bank Account of the Petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment and ensure that within a period of 6 months, the monthly stipend along with the cost of the caretaker is paid to the petitioner.

It was also directed that the said child be evaluated at least twice a year by a paediatrician till she attains the age of 18 and by a physician after she attains the age of 18 and shall be provided with medical treatment as well as rehabilitation training which is presently being offered to her so that she is in a position to live a reasonably dignified life.

The respondents were also directed to provide orthotic device support as required so that the said child could achieve some degree of independent walking abilities and give support at the District Early Intervention Centre (DEIC) where physiotherapists and speech therapists would be provided free of cost.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 111

Case Title: Binoy Deka v. The State of Assam & 2 Ors.

Case No.: WP(C)/320/2014

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment