Maitri Lakra vs All India Insitute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) & Ors

Mukta Gupta, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia seeking direction to the defendant No.1 All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)

through its Director to provide her necessary medical treatment. The claim of the petitioner in the present petition, which has been filed through her

husband, is that the petitioner is a patient of HIV +ve for the last twenty years and since 2015, she was suffering from mouth ulcers, which over the

passage of time developed into cancer. This fact has come into her knowledge only on 9th March, 2020. As the condition of the petitioner has

worsened, she was visiting OPD, AIIMS but she was referred to Cancer Centre at AIIMS, Jhajjar. At AIIMS, Jhajjar, the petitioner was prescribed

certain test including CT Scan and MRI which the petitioner had got done privately. However, before the petitioner could visit the AIIMS, Jhajjar with

the relevant reports, in view of the lockdown due to COVID-19 and the fact that AIIMS, Jhajjar had been notified as an exclusive Hospital for

treatment of patients for COVID-19, the petitioner received a message as to cancellation of the date of her visit to AIIMS, Jhajjar. Thereafter, the

petitioner made repeated visits to AIIMS, Delhi. However, she was only examined at OPD and no treatment was given. Claim of the petitioner is that

no date of surgery was given and she had started bleeding from her mouth resulting in aggravation of her condition.

Today, when this petition came up before this Court, at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that after filing of the petition, the

petitioner has been admitted at IRCH, AIIMS on 4th April, 2020 and her treatment has started.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 appears and states that after the admission of the petitioner at IRCH, AIIMS in view of her immunity

condition and multiple problems, the doctors are considering to administer her definitive chemo radiations instead of going ahead with a surgery which

is not feasible in the present condition of the patient.

Whether a surgery is to be performed or any other alternate treatment is to be given to the patient is in the exclusive decision of the concerned

doctors. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been admitted in IRCH, AIIMS and her treatment has started, at this stage this Court finds no

further directions to be issued to the respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 would file a status report indicating the course of treatment being

administered or likely to be administered to the petitioner.

The petitioner has impleaded National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) as respondent No.2 and Government of NCT of Delhi as respondent

No.3 and has filed an application seeking impleadment of Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as respondent No.4. Learned

counsel for the petitioner states that since no relief is sought against respondent No.2 and the proposed respondent No.4, the respondent No.2 be

deleted from the array of parties and respondent No.4 be not impleaded as a party.

Respondent No.3 was impleaded as the petitioner and her family members were finding it difficult to travel from residence to hospital and were in

requirement of the movement passes. Learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent No.3 state that on an advance copy of the petition being

received, movement passes for petitioner and her family members who are required to travel have already been issued. However, the grievance of the

petitioner is that movement passes have only been issued for ten days and thus the petitioner and her family members would be in difficulty after ten

days, in case the lockdown period/curfew if extended. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 assures that additional passes for the petitioner and her

family members will be issued till the lockdown/curfew period is extended and the petitioner will not be required to approach the respondent No.3

again and again for extension of movement passes. In view of the statement of respondent No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner states that

respondent No.3 be deleted from the array of parties.

Ordered accordingly.

List on 10th April, 2020 through Video Conferencing.