MITHILESHWAR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Dr. Mithileshwar Kumar, who is a permanent employee in the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar with a prayer for directing the State respondents to make payment of the expenses to be incurred on the treatment of his only son Master Harsh (hereinafter called the said child).

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY the child is suffering from a very rare and at the same time a very serious disease known as Osteopetrosis with Hydrocaphalus. The child is hardly three years old. After the child fell seriously ill, he was examined by a number of local physician but as no improvement was seen, the child was taken by the petitioner to Dr. Lala Suraj Nandan Prasad, Ex -Head of Department of Paediatrics, Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna (hereinafter called the P.M.C.H.). Dr. Prasad after treating the child referred the child for treatment to All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter called the AIMS). Thereafter the child was admitted in the AIMS for treatment. After the treatment of the child in AIMS, an advice certificate was given by Dr. Laxman Singh Arya, M.D., DCH, Additional Professor, Department of Paediatrics Oncology and Hematology, AIMS, New Delhi in which Dr. Arya advised that the only treatment possible for the child is one of Bone Marrow transplantation from a siblling donor. But the child being the only issue of the petitioner, the facility of the matched donor is not available in India and Dr. Arya advised that the child may go abroad. The search can be made through registry abroad kept in U.S.A. or U.K. As such Sri Arya advised the child to go abroad for unrelated matched bone marrow transplantation. Thereafter the petitioner got the child admitted in P.M.C.H., Patna where the child was examined by Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Associate Professor, Children Hospital, P.M.C.H., Patna. On the advice of Mr. Sinha a Medical Board was constituted. The Medical Board examined the child on 15.5.1997 and recommended for his treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay and thereafter an amount of Rs. 3500/ -was sanctioned to the petitioner as advance. The child was thereafter taken to Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay where Dr. S.H. Advani, M.D., FICP, FNAMS, Chief of the Department of Medical Oncology examined the child and gave an advice dated 4.6.1997 for contacting H.L.A. Registry at Memorial Hospital, New York for consideration of un -related matched ellogenic Bone marrow transplantation. Thereafter on the representation of the petitioner, the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna constituted a Medical Board which examined the child on 1.12.1997 and recommended the treatment of the child at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, N.H.S. Trust, London. This recommendation was made by the Medical Board constituted by the State. In view of the aforesaid recommendation of the Medical Board, the petitioner made correspondences with the two hospitals, one in U.K. and another in U.S.A. and obtained copies of their advice. From the aforesaid advice which has been disclosed with the writ petition it appears that both the Hospitals have opined that treatment is possible but the same is costly. From the opinion given by the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London it appears that the bone marrow transplantation is the only curative approach of correcting the deficient osteoclast function and the result of such bone marrow transplantation is well with 80% survival with Osteoclast function. In cases of un -related matched donor the success is 45% of cases. It has of course been opined by the said Hospital that such transplantation is a riskful intensive treatment which requires hospital admission for at least 2 or 3 months and as such the Hospital demanded a deposit of Rs. 120,000 U.K. pounds.

(3.) THEREFORE , the fact remains that the Medical Board has recommended the treatment of the child in a Hospital either at U.K. or U.S.A. and the petitioner on contacting those hospitals came to know that the treatment is possible but the treatment is costly. It is also a fact that if no treatment is given to the child, the child will not survive and will die without any treatment. Despite the aforesaid opinion being made available by the petitioner, the necessary fund was not sanctioned to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.