Bombay HC Directs Maharashtra Government To Issue Instructions To Educational Institutions Across Maharashtra On Compulsory Availability Of Medical Facilities
|The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Government to issue instructions to all educational institutions across Maharashtra on the compulsory availability of medical facilities.
The Court said that educational Institutes in larger cities have a substantial strength of students and staff members who spend a considerable portion of their day away from their homes therefore, relying solely on ad-hoc responses for medical emergencies is inadequate.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition involving an individual tragedy and raised significant concerns regarding the availability and adequacy of first aid and medical facilities in the educational Institutes in Maharashtra.
The bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye and Justice Nitin Jamdar observed, “The Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, will issue necessary instructions to all the educational Institutes covered by the Circular dated 10 July 2024 specifying the course of action within the bounds of law in case of failure to adhere to the directions in Circular dated 10 July 2024.”
Advocate Milind A. Ingole appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Rajshekhar V. Govilkar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner’s daughter, a final-year diploma student at Polytechnic College collapsed in her classroom and later died due to a haemorrhage. The petitioner alleges negligence by the college and two hospitals, citing inadequate medical facilities and delays in transporting her daughter to the hospital. She sought compensation and stringent action against the college and hospitals for medical negligence.
The Court refused to adjudicate on the disputed questions of facts and said that the claim of the Petitioner falls under the realm of tort law. However, the Court took into consideration the larger issue raised by the Petitioner who sought a direction for Respondent No. 1, the Principal Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education Department; Respondent No. 2, the Principal Secretary of the Education Department; and Respondent No. 3, the Director of the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, to issue directives to the respective Government Education Departments to ensure adequate medical facilities and equipment are available in colleges and schools.
The Court said, “Medical emergencies can occur due to the commuting requirements (especially in Mumbai) and diverse activities within these institutions. While some institutions may have their arrangements or provide ad-hoc responses by transporting patients to the nearest hospital during emergencies, delays in timely medical treatment can lead to fatal results.”
According to the Court, a structured approach and mandates of law are required to ensure basic medical facilities are readily available on the premises. “This necessitates directives from state authorities, with clear consequences for non-compliance, to ensure that educational Institutes adhere to standards that deal with the medical emergencies of their students and staff.”, the Court added.
The Court said that the State of Maharashtra had not issued any directions to educational Institutes regarding the medical facilities even when the State Government has the power to issue directions to these educational Institutes.
The Court noted that the Circular of July 10, 2024, does not stipulate any specific consequences for non-compliance. The Court said that the State should evolve mechanisms to monitor the functionality of medical facilities to ensure the effective implementation of the Circular.
Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition after issuing directions for effective implementation of circular.
Cause Title: Surekha Luxman Sonovane v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:28885-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Milind A. Ingole
Respondent: Sr. Adv. Rajshekhar V. Govilkar, GP P. P. Kakade, AGP T. J. Kapre, Adv. Mahendra M. Agavekar and Adv. Shraddha Chavan