The Gauhati High Court recently issued a directive compelling the State to extend both medical and financial assistance to a child grappling with a rare complication arising after a vaccination was administered. The court’s decision came in response to a Writ Petition filed by the father of the child, who is suffering from Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM). This debilitating condition emerged as a consequence of the vaccination, leading to permanent disabilities in the child.
The court underscored the child’s fundamental right to a dignified life, particularly given the father’s low-income status as a vegetable vendor. Justice Devashis Baruah emphasized that the right to life encompasses the right to live with human dignity. Considering the petitioner’s financial constraints and the child’s specific requirements for a dignified life, the court deemed state assistance necessary.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate R. S. Choudhury, had sought compensation from the Mission Director of the National Health Mission (NHM), responsible for the vaccination. However, faced with financial challenges and no action from the authorities, the petitioner turned to the High Court for redress. The court recognized that establishing negligence was crucial for relief but, considering the potential hardships in civil courts, decided not to relegate the matter. Instead, the court appointed a commission to investigate the alleged medical negligence.
The commission framed key issues, including whether the Health Department could have prevented the child’s permanent disability, what are the remedial steps for the child to live a life with dignity and whether medical negligence occurred. The court acknowledged the commission’s findings that the vaccination was appropriate, immediate symptoms were adequately treated, and established guidelines were followed in diagnosing and treating ADEM.
Despite the severe disabilities suffered by the child, including compromised vision, mobility issues, and an inability to perform basic tasks independently, the commission found no negligence by the Health Department. The court, appreciating the non-adversarial stance of the State Authorities, issued directives for the well-being of the petitioner’s daughter. These directives included a monthly stipend until she turns 18, additional funds for a caretaker, immediate financial assistance of Rs. 1,00,000 within 30 days, regular medical evaluations, orthotic supports, and assistance from the Social Welfare Department.
In disposing of the Writ Petition, the court acknowledged its limited expertise in medical matters and emphasized the need for experts to assess the child’s complex welfare needs.