Bombay High Court: In a tragic case, a petition was brought before the Court by the mother (‘petitioner’) of a deceased college student, who contended that her daughter had passed away due to the lack of adequate medical facilities at the College. The Division Bench of M.M. Sathaye and Nitin Jamdar*, JJ., after perusing a Circular issued by the HTE Department on 10-07-2024 regarding the provision of basic medical facilities at educational institutions, the Division Bench issued directions to the HTE and Education Department(s) that-the Circular shall specify the consequences for non-compliance; shall be widely publicised; and other directions in the interest of the well-being of the students, their parents, and the staff members of the educational institutions within the purview of the HTE and Education Department(s).
Background
The petition was filed by the mother of a final-year diploma student at Thakur Polytechnic College, Mumbai (‘College’), who passed away after collapsing and developing a haemorrhage. The petitioner contended that the College lacked adequate medical facilities, including an ambulance, due to which there was an unacceptable delay in the transportation of her daughter to the hospital. The petitioner further asserted that a timely medical treatment could have saved her daughter’s life. The petitioner sought a direction for stringent action against the College and the hospitals where the deceased was treated, for their medical negligence, and compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs for the death of her daughter.
The petitioner had also initiated proceedings before the Human Rights Commission, Maharashtra, (‘Commission’) for making the same grievance. The Commission had held that no evidence of failure on the part of any of the respondents in providing proper medical treatment was available, and that there was no negligence on the part of the College.
The petitioner also sought a direction for the Higher and Technical Education (“HTE”) Department, Education Department, and the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, to issue directives to the respective Government education departments to ensure adequate medical facilities and equipment are available at colleges and schools.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Court noted that educational institutions in larger cities have a substantial strength of students and staff members, spending considerable number of hours away from their homes; and medical emergencies could occur due to commuting requirements and other diverse activities within the institution premises. Therefore, a structured approach and mandate of law is required to ensure a ready availability of basic medical facilities on the premises. The Court further noted that the doing of the same would necessitate the issuance of directives from respective State authorities, with clear consequences for non-compliance, to ensure that educational institutes adhere to standards that deal with the medical emergencies of their students and staff.
The Court noted that All India Council for Technical Education (‘AICTE’) Approval Handbooks, placed on record by the amicus curiae, wherein, the norms for essential and desirable requirements of technical institutions, including the provision of first aid, medical facilities, and counselling services have been outlined. However, the Court found that the State of Maharashtra has not issued any directions to educational institutions regarding the provision of medical facilities.
The Court further noted the Circular issued by the HTE Department, dated 10-07-2024, mandating all colleges to provide basic medical care, such as compulsory student insurance, a first aid-cum-sick room equipped with first aid facilities, first aid training, annual medical examination of staff and students etc. Further, the institutions were also required to collaborate with local doctors to provide on-call medical services, and the provision of emergency vehicles for transportation to hospitals.
However, the Court also noted that the Circular did not stipulate any consequences in case of non-compliance and stated that, while it expected the education institutions would take the Circular stipulations positively, nevertheless, consequences for non-compliance with the Circular were required to be stipulated.
Therefore, in the light of the above, the Court issued the following directions:
-
The HTE Department shall issue necessary instructions to all the educational institutions covered by the Circular, specifying the lawful course of action to be followed in case of non-compliance of the Circular;
-
The HTE Department shall widely publicise the Circular through media, social media, or on its own website;
-
The HTE Department shall provide a helpline number and social media presence for the students, parents, and the staff members to raise any concerns about the non-compliance of an educational institution with the Circular;
-
The Education Department shall also issue a circular similar to the HTE Department Circular within one month from the date this decision;
-
The directions issued to the HTE Department are applicable to the Education Department as well.
However, other reliefs sought by the petitioner were rejected by the Court, disposing of the petition at this point.
[Surekha Luxman Sonovane v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2348, decided on 12-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Nitin Jamdar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Milind A. Ingole, Advocate
For the respondents: P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader, T.J. Kapre, AGP; Rajshekar V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate; Mahendra M. Agavekar and Shraddha Chavan, Advocates
Jaydeep Deo, Amicus Curiae
