Wife Seeking Aid From PM Cares Fund For Husband's Treatment: Supreme Court Asks Hospital If Cost Can Be Reduced

A Division Bench comprising Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha however clarified that they are not giving any direction to the Hospital but only asking them to consider if something can be done.

"Please go through the papers filed where the hospital has estimated the cost for his lung transplant and tell us if the hospital can be kind to the patient and reduce the charges", the Bench told Advocate Srinivas Rao appearing for the hospital.

The Bench further clarified, "Tell them, we are not giving any direction, Please tell them to consider. We are not giving any direction to the Government also, except that his representation is considered which may not be useful as the government has their constraints."

The Bench was informed by Advocate Rao that according to the hospital, the patient's condition is improving, and if it continues he might not need a transplant.

"That's good. You tell us next week, if condition has improved. Please get instructions if they can waive anything, we'll see. We will have it on Monday" the Bench said.

The Bench was hearing wife's plea seeking the release of approximately 1 crore from PM Cares & State CM Relief Funds as financial assistance for getting her husband a lung transplant after having exhausted her savings over his post- Covid treatment.

In the present case, owing to the unavailability of ECMO machine in Bhopal, AIIMS, the petitioner's husband was airlifted through air ambulance and admitted to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad , Telangana.

On previous occasion, Supreme Court had orally remarked that although it had told the petitioner that nothing could be done in the present matter, it nevertheless issued notice on August 6, 2021, to see if something could be done from the Union's end.

"We have already told the petitioner that nothing can be done but we had only served to see if something could be done from your end. We'll direct for serving a copy to you and hear the matter tomorrow," Justice LN Rao had said to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

It was argued that the petitioner was entitled to relief on the basis of equity, justice and good conscience and that she had a legitimate expectation of help from the Government in a situation of financial distress for saving the life of her husband.

"Not providing necessary financial assistance to save life of the husband of Petitioner is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same can be construed as inaction on part of the State in providing adequate health care to the citizens, particularly during the prevailing Covid-19 situation," the plea has stated.

Mehra in her plea has averred that she herself physically visited the Prime Minister's Office with an application seeking grant from PM Cares fund and PMNRF for defraying medical expenses of her husband, However, the staff at the counter did not take the application as the same was not accompanied by a recommendation letter from the Member of Parliament of her constituency.

She has further averred that the staff at the counter told her that a recommendation letter from the M.P. of her constituency was a mandatory document for processing the application.

"PM Cares Fund is a national endeavour to provide relief to the persons in a distress situation. The disbursement out of the said fund has to be done on a need basis and as per the Deed of trust which governs the fund. However, the said discretion has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and after proper application of mind. The case of the Petitioner is a fit case where disbursement ought to have been made by Respondent No.2," plea further stated.

The plea has placed reliance on the Top Court's judgement in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. UoI, 2020 SCC Online SC 652 wherein it was held that the primary objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected.

Reliance has further been placed on Parmanand Katara v. UOI & Ors, (1989) 4 SCC 286 wherein the Court had categorically held that it is the obligation of the State to preserve life and in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity Vs. State of W.B. reported as (1996) 4 SCC 37 wherein the Court had held denial of medical treatment to the patient in a Government Hospital for non-availability of bed as violative of Article 21 to aver that in the present case ECMO machine was not available in Bhopal AIIMS owing to which the petitioner's husband was airlifted through air ambulance and admitted to KIMS Hospital.

The matter is now expected to be heard on August 16th, 2021.

Case Title: Sheela Mehra v Union of India and Ors