Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Friday, November 1, 2024

Ban On Mobile In Hospitals Ban Impinging Upon The Right Of Free Communication Of Patients: Calcutta HC Asks State Government To Ease Out The Ban

Posted in: Civil Laws
Mon, Oct 5, 20, 20:52, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4134
Arjun Singh Vs. West Bengal the State Government shall take such appropriate measures without compromising the health issues of the public at large to ease out the ban on use of mobile phones in hospitals since the same definitely causes the inconvenience and other problems for the members of the society.

It is quite relaxing, quite refreshing quite rejuvenating and quite remarkable to note that the Calcutta High Court has just recently on 30 September, 2020 in Arjun Singh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. in WPA 5374 of 2020 and 3 others in exercise of its Constitutional Writ jurisdiction on appellate side has stated quite upfront in expressing the hope that the State Government shall take such appropriate measures without compromising the health issues of the public at large to ease out the ban on use of mobile phones in hospitals since the same definitely causes the inconvenience and other problems for the members of the society. The Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee further stated that the State Government should follow any directive/advisory issued in this regard by the appropriate department of the Central Government. Very rightly so!

To start with, the ball is set rolling by Justice Arijit Banerjee who authored this judgment for himself and Chief Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan by first and foremost observing in the introductory para 1 that:
Under challenge in these writ petitions is the decision of the State Government to ban the use of cell phones inside hospital premises, and in particular, the hospitals where Covid-19 patients are admitted. Such decision was contained in a Government Order dated April 22, 2020. The Order was passed on the basis that cell phones could be carriers of Corona Virus. Certain additional issues were pleaded in WPA 5374 of 2020 but the same was not pressed by the petitioner to avoid the mischief of mis-joinder of causes of action.

While dwelling on the contention of the petitioner, it is then envisaged in para 2 that:
The contention of the petitioners is that the decision to ban use of cell phones in hospitals is arbitrary and without any basis. It was contended that no State Government apart from the Government of West Bengal has issued direction for banning the use of cell phones in hospitals by the doctors, health workers and patients. It was submitted that cell phone is the only channel of communication between a hospitalized patient in the isolation wards dedicated for Covid-19 patients and his family members. Unless such a patient is permitted user of cell phone, he will be totally cut off from his family. There would be no way for such a patient to communicate with his family members and vice-versa. This would cause tremendous anxiety and mental agony to both the patient and his family.

While continuing in a similar vein, the Bench then observes in para 3 that:
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that although under Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the concerned authorities can adopt measures and issue directions to prevent the spread of an epidemic, their actions must pass the test of reasonableness. It was submitted that on the date when the order banning use cell phones in hospitals was issued, there was no material before the State Government justifying the issuance of such order. By imposing such a ban, the State Government has illegally impinged upon the right of free communication which is a Fundamental Right of every citizen of India including the patients infected with Covid-19 and their family members.

To be sure, para 4 then states:
It was further submitted that the prohibition imposed by the State Government is violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. The ban on mobile phones in Covid-19 hospitals is perverse. Such ban serves no purpose other than to prevent the possibility of exposure of gross mismanagement of Covid-19 patients and the deplorable condition that exists in hospitals.

Furthermore, the Bench then states in para 5 that:
It was also submitted that any object can be a potential carrier of Corona Virus. This may include wrist watches, books, gloves and other objects. To single out and ban mobile phones is absurd. Mobile phones expedite recovery of patients by keeping them in a good frame of mind and ensuring their mental well being. The petitioner in WPA 5416 of 2020 has relied on newspaper cuttings in support of his submission that the Central Government through the Director General of Health Services has issued directions to all States and Union Territories to allow the use of mobile phones to Covid-19 patients admitted in hospitals for their mental health and speedy recovery and that same recommendations have been made by various medical groups and organizations including the Association of Health Service Doctors, West Bengal.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then observes in para 6 that:
When these matters were moved, we had called for a report in the form of affidavit from the State. Such affidavit has been filed. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government has made detailed submission with reference to such affidavit and has sought to impress upon us that the decision that was taken on 22 April, 2020 was in the best interest of the Covid-19 patients, other patients, doctors, health workers and everybody else physically present in a hospital.

Needless to say, the Bench then discloses in para 7 that:
The stand of the State Government will appear from the affidavit filed by it, material portions whereof extracted hereunder:

 

  1. That while the pandemic situation prevailed in the months of March-April, 2020 there was no formal protocol available for treatment of patients of COVID-19. Even no guideline was available from Govt. of India or ICMR. In this circumstance, a report published in various media platforms stated that a group of doctors from AIIMS in Raipur suggested that mobile phones could possibly be a potential vector for spread of SARS-CoV-2. Another group of doctors claimed that the unrestricted use of mobile phones could be the missing link in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.
     
  2. Photostat copy of one of such report published in a daily newspaper as well as an article on the topic Mobile phones represent a pathway for microbial transmission are annexed hereto and collectively marked with letter A.
     
  3. That as a result, keeping in mind, the treatment of COVID-19 patients and to save their lives it was felt utmost necessary to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2, as well as to restrict the transmission of the virus to avoid risk of the affected persons, a whatsapp message was sent to the District Magistrate, CMOHs & Superintendents of COVID-19 Hospitals not to allow or carry, possess or use mobile phones inside the hospital for pre-empting infection. Such restriction was not meant for COVID-19 patients only. This applied to all persons inside the hospital whether doctor, patient or on duty staffs. With such restriction, it was also advised to ensure alternate communication channel by way of providing intercom facility, land line arrangement with STD call facility on priority basis. This was done only to restrict spreading/transmission of the virus.
     
  4. That in this connection, it may be mentioned that, with the introduction of this arrangement to curb the spread of the virus, it was advised in a video conference to the administrators of the COVID Hospitals that if there was sufficient infection control protocol in place in the treatment centers, the restriction of use of mobile phones can be relaxed. Accordingly, most of the COVID-19 Hospitals except M.R. Bangur Hospital & Calcutta Medical College & Hospital allowed use of mobile phones. However, good number of patients in these two hospitals voluntarily deposited their mobile phones or expressed desire not to carry the mobile phone inside the hospital. However, such relaxation could not be allowed in the first instances in Calcutta Medical College Hospital and M.R. Bangur Hospital because many critical patients were admitted mainly in these two Hospitals. During restriction on use of mobile phones in these two COVID Hospitals, arrangement was made for video chats also for COVID-19 patients and their families. Arrangement was also made for regularly briefing the conditions of the patients to their relatives over telephone. Virtual visiting hours also had been set up in the hospitals to facilitate communication between patients and their relatives.

    A Phtostat copy of the news report published in a Daily News Paper on Virtual Visiting Hours at the M.R. Bangur Hospital is annexed hereto and marked with the letter C.
  5. It is also pertinent to mention here in the Covid Hospitals since last few months, for communication purpose, the Government of West Bengal has established and/or installed three modes of communications namely:
    1. Intercom facility by which all the wards of the Covid Hospitals are connected with each other and also with the ward masters office, superintendent office and NS office;
    2. Dedicated Wireless GSM base Phones has been installed in each ward through which direct communication can be made by patients relatives;
    3. Fixed time Video Calling facility between the patients and their family members. I further beg to state that the Department of Health and family Welfare Government of West Bengal has also launched a software namely Covid-19 Patients Management System (CPMS) which helps the relatives of the patients to track the patients daily health status by logging in through their respective registered mobile numbers.

     
  6. In view of the above reasons, the message was sent to the concerned authorities for restriction on mobile phones in COVID-19 hospitals with the sole intention to arrest the transmission of the virus
     
  7. In this connection, it may be stated that, an Advisory had been issued to all COVID-19 hospitals advising them to continue the following practices:
    1. To ensure continuation of the existing practice of allowing one willing attendant of the patient in the hospital premises. Such an attendant should be allowed to remain in the earmarked patient waiting shed in the hospital premises for such duration as may be required.
    2. COVID-19 hospitals should continue facilitating communication between the hospital and patient's family members about his/her medical condition from time to time by utilizing the already existing on-campus help desks.
    3. Arrangements regarding call centre and video calling should also continue. Patient party members should be informed about the available telephone numbers at the time of admission of the patient so that line of communication is established properly.

A Photostat copy of the said Advisory vide memo no. HFW/NHM-228/2020 dated 07.07.2020 is annexed hereto and marked with the letter D.

No doubt, the Bench then makes it palpably known in para 8 that:
The case of the State Government therefore, appears to be, that in the wake of outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government adopted such measures as it thought would be the best interest of everybody concerned. There was one school of thought that cell phones could be potential carriers of Corona virus. Since this was a possibility, the Government played it safe. It cannot be said that the decision of the Government was based on no material at all. Further, with the passage of time, the restriction imposed has been eased out gradually and cell phones are now being permitted to be used in most of the hospitals. In the hospitals like M.R. Bangur and Calcutta Medical College where cell phones are still not being allowed, sufficient arrangements have been made for audio/video calling so that a patient can be in touch with his/her family members and the latter can be kept informed about the state of health of the patient.

In hindsight, it is then conceded by the Bench in para 9 that:
We have anxiously considered the respective contentions of the parties. There is no doubt that cell phone has become an integral part of our lives. Mobile phones have come to be inextricably intertwined with our daily lifestyle. Indeed, if we do not have a cell phone handy, many of us feel diffident. Almost gone are the days of the fixed landline telephones. Mobile phones have become the most used means of communication between persons at different geographical locations. When mobile phones were first introduced, they were considered to be a luxury. The price of mobile phones at that time was also such that the device was beyond the reach of a major section of our society. Over the last 25 or 30 years, cell phones have revolutionized the world. The globe has become a smaller place because of cell phones. Now this device is not considered to be a luxury item. It has become a necessity for most of us.

Truly speaking, the Bench then concedes in para 10 that:
No doubt that the ban on use of cell phones in hospitals impinged upon the right of free communication of patients and others present in a hospital. However, one must remember that with the sudden outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the world at large including the governments across the countries were faced with an unprecedented situation. The people of this planet including the medical sector across the globe were taken by complete surprise by the novel Corona Virus about which nobody knew much. Nobody had any idea as to how to contain the spread of the virus or to escape from the sinister claws of the virus. There was no medical protocol in place. It was a virus that was unknown to the world. It was indeed Novel.

On a related note, while talking about West Bengal, the Bench then observes in para 11 that:
The situation was not different in the State of West Bengal. On one hand there was this virus spreading its wings in all directions at a rapid rate and on the other hand there was no known standard medical or clinical procedure to prevent the spread of the virus or to treat the Covid-19 disease. Under those circumstances, the only thing that one could do is perhaps avoid everything that could even remotely have the possibility of causing spread of the virus. Thus, social distancing became the norm. Facial masks, gloves and hand sanitizers became essential parts of our daily lives. There was one school of medical thought that subscribed to the idea that mobile phones could be potential carriers of Corona Virus. We have not only gone through the literature annexed to the affidavit of the State Government, we have taken judicial notice of other literature in this regard available on the internet. It is true that there is no conclusive evidence that mobile phones are potential carriers of the virus. It is equally true that there is no conclusive evidence that mobile phones cannot be potential carriers of Corona Virus. Under those circumstances, we cannot say that it was wholly unreasonable, imprudent or arbitrary on the part of the State administration to impose ban on use of mobile phones inside hospitals which were treating Covid-19 patients. The situation was such that everybody was groping in the dark in search of ways and means to restrict the spread of Covid-19 pandemic and find a cure for the malady. In such situation, often it becomes necessary for the people in governance to take a decision on a trial and error basis or to impose certain restrictions on the members of the society for the safety of their health which may have the effect of curtailment of some of their constitutional rights.

What's more, the Bench then also observes in para 12 that:
Be that as it may, we have seen from the State's affidavit that the ban imposed in April 2020 has now been relaxed to a large extent and mobile phones are being permitted in almost all the hospitals. Learned counsel for the petitioners argue that as on the date of imposition of the ban there was no material available with the Government on the basis of which that decision could be taken. We are not inclined to go into that controversy. We have indicated above that there was a section of experts who were of the opinion that mobile phones could potentially be an instrument for spreading Corona Virus. Even otherwise, we do not think that the decision of the State Government was perverse or Wednesbury unreasonable. In our opinion, it will serve no useful purpose to conduct a post mortem of the decision of the State administration imposing the ban.

Frankly speaking, the Bench then does not shy away from conceding and observing in para 13 that:
We have noted that arrangements have been made by the State Government in the hospitals particularly where mobile phones are still not being permitted, so that a patient can be in touch with his/her family members and they can also see each other virtually through video calling mode. We are sure that the State Government shall take such appropriate measures without compromising the health issues of the public at large to ease out the ban on use of mobile phones in hospitals since the same definitely causes inconvenience and other problems for the members of the society. The State Government should follow any directive/advisory issued in this regard by the appropriate department of the Central Government.

Truth be told, the Bench then also makes it known in para 14 that:
Learned Counsel for the petitioner in WPA 5416 of 2020 sought to rely on certain newspaper reports. However, it is well established that newspaper reports are of dubious evidentiary value and should not ordinarily be acted upon by a Court of law unless supported by an affidavit of the author of the report. However, we repeat that we have full faith and trust that the Administration shall not unnecessarily prevent use of cell phones in hospitals and shall take all measures to minimize or eliminate any inconvenience or problem that a patient or his/her family may be facing by reason of banning use of mobile phones in hospitals.

Quite remarkably, the Bench then goes on to add as an aside in para 15 that:
One other issue raised by Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that if the other hospitals are now permitting use of mobile phones, then there is no reason why M.R. Bangur Hospital and Calcutta Medical College Hospital also will not permit use of mobile phones. Learned Advocate General representing the State submitted that these two hospitals have more critical patients than the other hospitals and hence the restriction on use of mobile phones is still there in these two hospitals. We are not quite impressed with this stand of the State. It is not quite acceptable that all the other hospitals are treating less critical patients than the aforesaid two hospitals. However, we are sure that the appropriate sector of the State administration shall revise and reassess the situation in the said two hospitals, i.e., M.R. Bangur Hospital and Calcutta Medical College Hospital and, unless there are very compelling reasons to be recorded in writing by the appropriate authority, the ban on use of mobile phones in these two hospitals also will be lifted.

Finally, in the last para 16 , the Bench then holds that:
Four writ petitions being WPA 5374 of 2020, WPA 5376 of 2020, WPA 5416 of 2020 along with WPA 5377 of 2020 are accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photo copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

The bottom-line of this notable judgment is that Calcutta High Court very rightly asks the State Government to take such appropriate measures without compromising the health issues of the public at large to ease out the ban on the use of mobile phones in hospitals since the same definitely causes inconvenience and other problems for the members of the society. There is no reason why the State Government of West Bengal should not comply accordingly as asked by the Calcutta High Court! It goes without saying that it is the public who are compelled to visit hospital due to some of their family member being admitted there who will benefit the most! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top