M KOHIMA Vs. NAGA HOSPITAL AUTHORITY KOHIMA(NHAK)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Neiteo Koza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. N. Mozhui, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 7, Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 to 6 and Ms. Neise Liegise, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. C.T Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Nukshinaro, learned counsel for respondent No. 8.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in brief is that the Surgeon Doctor working in the Naga Hospital Authority, Kohima (NHAK, in short), who was supposed to operate her on 04.07.2017 declined to do so only due to her HIV status. The petitioner's grievance is that due to the discrimination meted out to her by the said Surgeon Doctor, the petitioner had to go to another hospital and have her surgery done. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for reimbursement of the cost of surgery done in the other hospital and also for payment of damages due to the trauma and pain caused to her.

(3.) Ms. Neiteo Koza, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is an HIV+, who has been undergoing Anti Retroviral Therapy (ART) since October, 2013. The petitioner has been undergoing ART in NHAK since inception and periodically going to the said hospital for her treatment and medical check-ups. As the petitioner was suffering from some abdominal pain, she went to NHAK on 28.04.2017 for a medical check-up. The petitioner was asked to undergo an Ultrasonographic test on 28.04.2017 and the result of the same, which was issued on 08.05.2017 was to the effect that besides there being a left ovarian cyst (40.6x42mm), there was a small gallbladder polyp. A subsequent Ultrasonographic test done on the petitioner showed that the small gallbladder polyp measured 3.6mm, as per the NHAK Department of Radio Diagnosis Certificate dated 21.06.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to undergo various tests, including Blood Test as the operation for removal of the polyp had been fixed by the concerned Surgeon Doctor of NHAK on 04.07.2017. The petitioner was to meet the Doctor on 03.07.2017 and be admitted on 03.07.2017 in the NHAK in preparation for the operation to be held by way of keyhole surgery on 03.04.2017. However, when the petitioner met the Doctor on 03.04.2017, the Doctor on coming to know that the petitioner was HIV+, he informed the petitioner that considering the size of the polyp, she should follow up with the Surgery Department about the size of the polyp after every 6 (six) months. The learned counsel submits that the Surgeon Doctor already having decided to remove the polyp, which could turn cancerous, by way of keyhole surgery on 04.07.2017, the Doctor could not have changed his opinion with regard to how the polyp should be treated, only due to the petitioner being an HIV patient, which was in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.