PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

A compilation of PIL cases in Bangladesh

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1827 of 2021
Home 9 PIL Cases 9 Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1827 of 2021
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1827 of 2021

Date of filing: 08/02/2021

Petitioners

1. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST)

2. Academy for Law and Policy (ALAP)

 

Respondents

  1. Secretary, Ministry of Health.
  2. Director General, Ministry of Health.
  3. President, Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council.

Facts

 The writ petition concerns the alleged failure of hospitals and clinics in Bangladesh to provide emergency medical treatment to critically ill patients. It refers to several incidents in which emergency patients were allegedly denied or unable to obtain treatment, including road-crash victims, an obstetric patient, a victim of political violence, a child suffering from dengue, and a critically ill patient during the COVID-19 pandemic. The alleged reasons for refusal or failure to provide treatment included financial inability, medico-legal complications, political considerations, lack of available beds, and inadequate equipment, expertise, or facilities. In May 2020, the DGHS issued directives requiring hospitals and clinics to make arrangements for COVID-19 patients and stating that hospitals with the necessary facilities should not refuse treatment. The petition also refers to the Medical Practice and Private Clinics and Laboratories (Regulation) Ordinance, 1982, and the Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council Act, 2010. Reference is also made to the 2018 judgment in Syed Saifuddin Kamal v. Bangladesh, pursuant to which guidelines were framed requiring emergency medical services for road-crash victims. The case raises the absence of a comprehensive legal framework governing emergency medical services for other critically ill patients and seeks directions for extending similar guidelines to all emergency patients.

 

Rule/Order/Judgment

Date: 12/09/21

Details

The High Court Division on 12.09.2021 issued Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to explain why their failure to ensure that public and private hospitals, clinics and medical practitioners provide emergency medical services to all persons in need should not be declared unlawful and violative of Articles 27, 28, 31 and 32 of the Constitution. The respondents were also asked to show cause why they should not be directed to:

  • ensure that no hospital or clinic refuses emergency treatment;
  • transfer patients to the nearest available hospital where the required emergency service is unavailable; and
  • require an emergency department as a condition for new and renewed license of private hospitals and clinics.

Pending disposal of the Rule, the respondents were directed to immediately ensure access to emergency medical services and appropriate transfer of patients where necessary. They were further directed to prepare and submit, within 3 months, a list of all government and private hospitals and clinics having emergency departments, including a general description of those departments.

Justices

Mrs. Justice Farah Mahbub

Mr. Justice S.M. Maniruzzaman 

Area of law

Health Rights

Keywords

Access to Emergency Medical Services for critically injured patients.

Relevant statute

Constitution, Articles 27, 28, 31 and 32

Date: 02/02/2022

Affidavit in Compliance

Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-compliance in response to the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court. The Respondent stated that several steps have been taken to ensure the availability of emergency medical services. A circular dated 02.02.2022 was issued directing hospitals, clinics and healthcare institutions to keep their emergency departments open.It was further stated that the Upazila Health Complexes were inspected and that emergency services, necessary equipment including oxygen cylinders, nebulizer machines and ECG machines, and required doctors and staff were available. The Government has also supplied necessary medical equipment, medicines and other essential materials to government hospitals and Upazila Health Complexes and taken measures to improve hospital infrastructure and healthcare facilities. The Respondent further stated that the concerned authorities remain vigilant regarding the issue and are taking various measures to improve emergency and general healthcare services.

Affidavit-in-Reply by Petitoner

The petitioners stated that the Respondents’ compliance does not fully satisfy the interim order of the Hon’ble Court. In particular the circular issued by the Respondents does not impose a clear obligation on hospitals and clinics to ensure the transfer of a patient to the nearest hospital where the required emergency service is unavailable. The petitioners suggested issuing and disseminating a further circular clarifying this obligation, including assistance in arranging transport and confirming that the receiving hospital has the required emergency facility. The petitioners further stated that the Respondents have only reported inspecting 423 Upazila Health Complexes (UHCs) and finding emergency departments operational there. However, the Respondents have not yet submitted the required lists of other government and private hospitals and clinics having emergency departments, together with a general description of the condition of those departments, as specifically directed by the interim order.

Database Last Updated on: 2017-02-12 15:26:45