MADURAI: Observing that the State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation by citing financial constraints, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu government to allocate funds to set up a Bone Marrow Transplantation (BMT) facility at Government Rajaji Hospital (GRH) in Madurai within three months, with further directions to complete the setting up of the facility within six months therefrom.
A bench of justices MS Ramesh and AD Maria Clete, which passed the order, further directed the government to consider and decide on a representation, which is to be made by the petitioner seeking guidelines in respect of the standards of medical and infrastructure facilities in all government hospitals in the state.
The bench issued the directions while disposing of two Public Interest Litigations (PILs), which highlighted the lack of BMT facility in government hospitals across TN and the need for guidelines governing the standard of facilities provided in the said hospitals.
According to the litigants, except Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai (RGGH) and Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children, Egmore (ICHHC), no other government hospital has the facility of free BMT services in the State. Since the BMT surgery is a costly procedure, only rich and affluent persons can afford it in private hospitals, they added and sought a direction to establish the facility in GRH and other hospitals.
The Director of Medical Education submitted a status report that the estimated cost for civil structure, equipment, staff sanctioning for BMT facility would be Rs 13.52 crore, while the annual expenditure for staff and the total cost of equipment would be Rs 3.63 crore and Rs 4.99 crore respectively.
He also added that medical officers from government medical colleges in Madurai and Dindigul have been deputed to undergo bone marrow training programme at Chennai.
However, the additional advocate general contended that since the matter involves huge expenditure, it falls within the purview of policy decisions of the government and no time limit can be fixed by the court for implementing it.
Citing some decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the judges rejected the AAG’s contention by holding that the provision of a medical facility in government hospitals, so as to reach the poor, downtrodden and underprivileged citizens of the society, is a constitutional obligation of the State.
“When such facilities are neglected by the state, this Court would be well within its powers to issue positive directions for such provisions,” they said.