PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

1. Syed Saifuddin Kamal
2. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST)

1. Secretary, Ministry of Health
2. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Bridges
3. DGHS, Ministry of Health
4. President, Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council

BLAST and Syed Saifuddin Kamal, a social entrepreneur, filed this writ petition after the latter who had tried to ensure emergency medical services from three local hospitals for a young man called Arafat, a bus helper, who died after being critically injured when a bus ran over him on the Airport Road near Banani, Dhaka, and after he was turned away by the hospitals in question. The petitioners argued that the failure to provide emergency medical services to the bus helper was a serious violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 27, 31 and 32 of the Constitution, Sections 8 and 11 of Medical Practice and Private Clinics and Laboratory (Regulation) Ordinance 1982, and Section 5(A) of Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council Act 1980.

The High Court issued a Rule Nisi directing the respondents to show cause as to why the failure to ensure emergency medical services by existing hospitals and clinics, whether governmental or private, to critically injured persons should not be declared to be made without lawful authority and volatile of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and incorporate such a requirement in the license issued to any hospital or clinic and set up a complaints system to receive reports regarding the denial of services. The Court also issued interim directions upon respondent nos. 1 and 2 to report within 3 months on progress in ensuring emergency medical services for traffic accident victims under the National Road Safety Strategic Action Plan 2014-2016 and propose guidelines for managing emergency medical services, including running an emergency reporting number, and creating public awareness of such services through the print and electronic media, and upon respondents nos. 1 and 3, to issue necessary guidelines for protection of ‘good samaritans’ for hospitals, police and others.

The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to show cause as to why a Contempt of Court proceeding shall not be drawn up against them for for violating the directives of the Court dated 10.02.2016.

Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdury
Mr. Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir

As the delay in submitting Affidavits-of-Compliance by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 was not professedly intentional, Court is inclined to exonerate them from the liability of committing Contempt of Court. Accordingly, they are exempted from the liability of committing Contempt of Court. However, they are warned to be careful and vigilant in the future in this respect.

The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are hereby directed to submit further Affidavits-of-Compliance as to the progress made by them with regard to the interim directions by this Court.

It appears from Annexure-‘1’ that the decisions taken in the consultative meeting held on 23.08.2016 are to be implemented by the Implementing Authorities. In order to implement the decisions in question, some more time is definitely required by the concerned Implementing Authorities. In that view of the matter, the next date is fixed on 13.11.2016 for passing necessary orders on the progress so far achieved in respect of implementation of the decisions by the Implementing Agencies. By that date (13.11.2016), the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 will, however, file their respective Affidavits-of-Compliance in that regard.

Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdury
Mr. Justice Ashish Ranjan Das

The Court passed an order in the following term- Affidavit in
Compliance submitted on 02.04.2017 by the respondent no. 1 is an evidence that a core
committee formed on 16.03.2017 to formulate a set of guideline on ‘Management Policy in order to create Emergency Medical Services in private hospitals for Road Accident Victims’. They expected to submit a report on the guidelines  by 09.04.2017.

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed
Mr.  Justice Md. Salim

The matter was in heard-in-part. Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated 5.4.2017, the learned AAG appeared for the Respondent No. 1, Ministry of Health informed that the formulating the set of Guidelines is in progress and sought additional time for submission of the draft Guidelines from the Court.

Given the urgency with which the Ministry at its meeting of 15.3.2017 had embarked on drafting the guidelines, it has been deemed prudent for the Respondent No. 1 to revert to the Court by 31.5.2017 through an Affidavit with definite information of either completion of the formulation of the Guidelines or the stage at which the process now stands.

Further, the Court drew the attention of the Respondent No. 1 to the necessity of such Guidelines not only to cover the matter of urgent medical care to victims of accidents or offences, but also the status of their aiders or good Samaritans and their protection from undue harassment consequent upon their interventions in aid of victims.

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed
Mr. Justice Md. Salim

The Respondent No. 1 filed affidavit in complaice with the draft guideline namely ” সড়ক দুর্ঘটনায় আহত ব্যক্তির জরুরী স্বাস্থ্য সেবা নীতিমালা, ২০১৭”। In the said guideline, the emergency medical service to the raod accident victim as well as the protection of the good samaritans were covered. 

The petitioners sought time for filing affidavit in reply.

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed
Mr.  Justice Md. Salim

The petitioners filed affidavit in reply. The petitioners have placed a set of recommendations as are the outcome of two expert consultations held in august and September under the auspicious of the Petitioner No. 2, BLAST. After hearing the court ordered that it deemed imperative for all the respondents to peruse such recommendations as well as the established good practices, particularly in India, pertaining to Good Samariatns as a prerequisite to any finalization of the Draft Guidelines previously placed before the court. 

The court further directed to the respondent no 1 to revert to this court with its considered views on this matter positively by 09.11.2017.

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed
Mr.  Justice Md. Salim

The respondent no.1 was directed to file an affidavit in compliance bringing on record the text of the Guidelines as issued on 19.10.17 and explaining the extent of the outstanding work and time needed for completion of the same. 

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed

Mr.  Justice Md. Salim

The respondent no. 1 filed affidavit in compliance persuant to the order dated 09.11.17. It has been stated in the affidavit that the Draft Guideline dated 30.07.17 has been  produced before the court on 09.08.17. subsequently it was uploaded in the website of respondent no. 1. Though it was uploaded in the website, it’s not final, before finalization it would be placed before the court with necessary changes as per the direction of the court. 

The learned AAG sought time to place the reviewed guideline which was accepted by the court.

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed

Mr.  Justice Md. Salim

The respondent no.1 filed affidavit in compliance with the reviewed guideline. In the guideline most of the recommendations of the petitioners were accepted and placed.

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed

Mr.  Justice Md. Salim

The petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit stating the full process of making recommendations and review of the draft guideline with agreed modifications. It is stated that the respondent no.1 organized two meeting in the ministry on 29.01.18 and 05.02.18 to review the petitioner’s recommendations on the Draft Guidelines with relevant stake holders. In the said meetings, a consensus was reached as how the Drat Guidelines are to be modified in light of the recommendations and the content and language of these modifications. 

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed

Mr.  Justice Md. Salim

The Court made the rule absolute with the observations, directions and guidelines.

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed

Mr.  Justice Md. Salim