WUNRN
INDIA - DELHI HIGH COURT -
LANDMARK RULING
MATERNAL RIGHTS CASES - RIGHT TO
LIFE, RIGHT TO HEALTH
04/06/2010
In a historic decision the Delhi High Court ordered
compensation for
violation of constitutional and reproductive rights of two impoverished
women. The judgment will have immense health policy implications in India,
where a maternal death occurs every five minutes.
In the case of Laxmi Mandal vs Deen Dayal Hari Nager Hospital & Ors W.P.
8853/2008 Justice Muralidhar instructed the State of Haryana, to
pay compensation of Rs 2.4 lakhs to the family of Shanti Devi who passed
away during child birth on 20 January this year. The Court
found the Respondents in violation of Shanti Devi's right to life and
health, reiterating that her death was preventable.
In the case of Jaitun v Maternity Home, MCD, Jangpura & Ors W.P. No.
10700/2009 High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to pay Rs 50,000
compensation to Fatima for the violation of her fundamental rights by
being compelled to give birth to her daughter Alisha under a tree, on
account of the denial of basic medical services.
"These petitions are essentially about the protection and enforcement of
the
basic, fundamental and human right to life under Article 21 of
the Constitution. These petitions focus on two inalienable survival rights
that form part of the right to life: the right to health (which would
include the right to access and receive a minimum standard of treatment and
care in public health facilities) and in particular the reproductive rights
of the mother. The other right which calls for immediate protection and
enforcement in the context of the poor is the right to food".
The Court underlined that the cases demonstrated a complete failure of the
public health system and a failure in implementation of Government Schemes,
including the National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS), Integrated Child
Development Scheme (ICDS) and Janani Soraksha Yojana (JSY) - a scheme
designed to reduce maternal and neo-natal mortality by encouraging
institutional delivery for poor pregnant women. The judgment further
directed the Respondents to ensure that the payment of Rs 500, eight to
twelve weeks prior to delivery to all Below Poverty Line (BPL) pregnant
women to ensure their proper nutrition under the NMBS, be ensured as per
Supreme Court Order in PUCL v UOI 196/2001, irrespective of age and number
of previous births in all states in India.
"Both the cases point to the complete failure of the implementation of the
schemes. With the women not receiving attention and care in the critical
weeks preceding the expected dates of delivery, they were deprived of
accessing minimum health care at either homes or at the public health
institutions (.) It points to the failure of the referral system where a
poor person who is sent to a private hospital cannot be assured of quality
and timely health services."
Drawing on international law Justice Muralidhar underlined that women have
the right to control their body and decide when they wish to conceive. The
Court also pointed out that women carry the burden of poverty in that they
have to prove their BPL status when trying to access health facilities and
accordingly ordered that "no pregnant women be denied access to medical
treatment regardless of her social economical status".
"There is no assurance of "portability" of the schemes across
the states. In
the present case, Shanti Devi traveled from Bihar to Haryana and then to
Delhi. In Haryana she was clearly unable to access the public health
services. At Delhi she had to once again show that she had a BPL card, and
on being unable to do so, she was denied access to medical facilities. For
the migrant workers this can pose a serious problem. Instructions will have
to be issued to ensure that if a person is declared BPL in any state of the
country and is availing of the public health services in any part of the
country, such person should be assured of continued availability of such
access to public health care services wherever such person moves."
"It may be difficult to quantify the actual loss suffered by either family
as a result of the failure by the State Government to deliver the benefits
under the schemes to each of these women during their pregnancies. What is
clear in Shanti Devi's case is that the maternal mortality was clearly
avoidable".
"In the case of Fatema soon after the baby was delivered, she required
nutrition and supplements which were denied till the Court's intervention.
Even the ICDS benefits were given only after the Court's intervention. It is
well possible that but for the Court's intervention, the baby and the mother
may have been deprived of the benefits which would have caused irreparable
injury and possibly loss of life".
"It was not denied by learned counsel appearing for the Government of
Haryana, the GNCTD as well as the Central Government that as of now there is
no inbuilt component for reparations under the schemes. Given that the
budget outlay of the schemes is in several hundreds of crores, it is indeed
surprising that there is no inbuilt component for reparations"
The maternal mortality ratio (number of women dying per 100,000 live births)
in India is higher than in 120 countries, including neighboring states of
Bangladesh, China, Nepal and Sri Lanka. More than 117,000 women and girls
die each year in India from largely preventable pregnancy- related causes.
This is the highest number of maternal deaths in any country world-wide,
which accounts for almost 25% of the global maternal death burden.