The court came down heavily on the Aam Aadmi Party government and sought to know if other (non-COVID) patients had a right to life.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stayed the Delhi government's September 13 order that directed private hospitals in the national capital to reserve 80 per cent of ICU beds for COVID-19 patients.
The petition was filed by the ‘Association Of Healthcare Providers’ to quash the order. A single judge bench of the High Court presided by Justice Navin Chawla stayed the order.
The court came down heavily on the Aam Aadmi Party government and sought to know if other (non-COVID) patients had a right to life.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the association, said the 33 private hospitals are its members and the Delhi government’s order shall be quashed as it was passed in an irrational manner and is ex-facie perverse.
He said the order has to be stayed immediately as it puts someone’s life in danger and it will be criminal on the part of the hospital to keep an ICU bed vacant and not admit the non-COVID-19 serious patients who are in queue.
Prima facie, the Delhi government’s order “appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights of citizens” guaranteed under the Constitution, Justice Navin Chawla said.
A visibly annoyed, Justice Chawla asked, "Do other patients have a right to life or not or is it now that the state says only COVID-19 patients have a right to life. This is making my blood boil. The patient is not going there for a holiday, he is going there in an emergency. Why do you (Delhi government) discriminate between the two (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). Why do you have to keep an ICU bed vacant for COVID-19 patient and the other one in need can die? A person has got a heart attack and you are saying he should die on the road."
The court issued notices and sought responses of the Delhi government and the Centre on a plea by 'Association of Healthcare Providers' to quash the order.
The operation of the order shall remain stayed till the next date of the hearing which was October 16, the court said.
(With agency inputs)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "ICU")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}