Patna, Bihar: Patna Medical College Hospital (PMCH) is a law into itself and the Patna High Court is far from pleased.

On Tuesday, Justice Jyoti Saran held that prima fasciae a case for Contempt is made out against the Superintendent PMCH as the Petitioner (30 year old widow Sohila Kunwar, living with HIV) is made to run from pillar to post and despite the last order (dated 28.May 2015.), no update with respect to what steps has been taken for her treatment. Moreover, she has to spend on her medical tests at the instance of the PMCH.

On 30 June2015 the Superintendent PMCH is directed to remain personally present before the Court if not an explanation is filed on his behalf with respect to the Contempt and the steps taken on his behalf for the Compliance of the last order.

The back story: Sohila Kunwar, a widow is a destitute, having been thrown out of her matrimonial house in Chapra (Saran District) after the death of her husband from HIV/AIDS related causes. She barely makes keeps her body and soul together by working as a household help washing utensils in other houses. She is living with HIV+ / AIDS (i.e. PLHA and requires hysterectomy surgery as her uterus has become hazardous, troublesome and perhaps infected, due to which the Petitioner is having problem to sit down properly and her every stride is quite painful.

On April 14, the Sadar Hospital, Saran referred the Petitioner to the Patna Medical College Hospital (PMCH) (at the pretext of her HIV+ status) [a common practice there as mentioned in another article].When she approached PMCH, the PMCH refused her the surgery on 30.04.2015, and also boldly denoted the HIV+ status on her prescription breaching the confidentiality of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner filed Representation dated 19.05.2015 before the Superintendent of PMCH, no action was taken.

Therefore with the help of a HIV Rights group and Human rights law network advocate Vikash Pankaj, the widow approached the Patna High Court. On 28^th May, The case came before Justice Nanavati Prasad Singh who ordered:

The Order

“By this application, the petitioner complains that she is a poor lady. Being seriously ill is unable get treatment on her own. She is a resident of Chapra. She had certain gynecological problem. She went to the Sadar hospital at Chapra where she was examined and then referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as „P.M.C.H.‟). In P.M.C.H. she was examined and she was told that she needed an operation immediately, but as she was HIV positive no doctor was ready to operate or attend to her. Learned counsel for the State points out that from the medical prescription (Annexure – 2) of the P.M.C.H., vide registration no. 20150423108063 dated 23.04.2015, it appears that there is no clear advice for operation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though she was told that she needed an urgent operation, deliberately knowing fully well that she was a HIV patient, no doctor is taking risk for treating her. It was not being so endorsed. In view of the materials on record, this court is not in a position to give finding on this, which is best be left to the experts. However, in a welfare state it is the duty of the State to ensure proper medical aid to every citizen especially the poor who cannot afford treatment elsewhere for various reasons.

It is established law that merely because a person is HIV positive no doctor can refuse to take care rather under Hippocratic oath, which every doctor has to take, he is obliged, as a matter of professional etiquette,

to attend such patient, doing otherwise, would disqualify them and as they would be going against the said oath of service. There is a decision of this Court as well on the issue in the case of Juhi Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2011(2) PLJR 1041.

In that view of the matter, I direct the Superintendent of P.M.C.H., Patna to immediately constitute a Board of three doctors of the College to examine the petitioner immediately and give a detailed report about her medical status.

If considering her age and physical condition an operation is advisable, then it shall be the responsibility of the Superintendent of P.M.C.H. to ensure that it is done at the earliest without any further harassment to the petitioner and at the cost of the State. Only to avoid performing operation, the medical board should not give report which they would normally not have given. The report of the medial board and the report of the Superintendent, in case she is advised against any such surgical intervention, would be submitted to the court within ten days of production of copy of this order before the Superintendent, P.M.C.H., Patna. In case surgery is recommended, it goes without saying that there would be no delay for the same on any ground whatsoever. Put up this matter before appropriate bench under the heading “For Orders” after summer vacation. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)

Now, the PMCH and its superintendent appears to have ignored that order. Let’s see how the case progresses on the 30^th of June.

[Prepared by Newsnet Desk with inputs from Vikash Pandey and Sanjitt Singh]

  Bihar, HIV, HUMAN RIGHTS, Human Rights Law Network, Patna High Court