Patients Cannot be Denied Health Care on the Basis of Residence

Shaunak Choudhury | SVKM’s NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law | 13^th June 2020

Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11870 

Facts

This cases arised from a Public Interest Litigation filed against a notification issued by Medical Director, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Government of NCT of Delhi dated 1^st October 2018. The notification declared that patients that did not hold a Voter ID of Delhi would be categorized as non-residents of Delhi and would be denied certain hospital facilities. Non-resident patients would not get free medicines from the pharmacy unlike residents of Delhi and, they would also be the denied facility of investigation such as pathology and radiology. The Petitioner claimed that the notification was discriminatory and violated Articles 14, 19, 21 and 47 of the Constitution. The Respondents defended the notification by giving the reason of decongesting the hospital due to an increase in population and non-residents coming to Delhi for medical care. 

Issues 

1. Whether the notification is violative of Article 14.
2. Whether the notification is violative of Article 21.

Judgement

1. With the reading of the Preamble along with Article 14, the Court opined that any step that fails to achieve the socialistic goal set out by the Constitution or that adopts a classification which is not in tune with that of a welfare society, is unsustainable and unconstitutional (Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986) 2 SCC 294). The notification made by the Government of Delhi categorized citizens in two boxes, residents with Voter ID of Delhi and citizens without Voter ID of Delhi. Article 14 allows reasonable classification and in order for that classification to be viable in law, it must be based on intelligible differentia and there must also exist nexus between the classification and the purpose. The Court did not find the classification made by the notification to be reasonable and also dismissed the reason of over-congestion. 
2. Access to health care is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government has a duty to ensure that free and fair access to health care is available to all citizens, thus access to medicines, treatment and other health care facilities is a constitutional obligation put upon the State. As given in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale ((1983) 3 SCC 387), right to life is not merely about survival or animal like existence but it means that life must be worth living and the requirements that make life meaningful are an integral part of right to life. As per Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Assns. v. Union of India ((2006) 8 SCC 399) medical care is a fundamental right. The excuse of non-availability of finances cannot allow the Government to deny health care. Lack of facilities, outburst of population and low manpower can also not be used as excuses for the State to shirk away from its duty to provide free and fair health care. 

Thus, the notification was found to be blatantly discriminatory, violative of the right to life and hence unconstitutional.