I still have a lot to say: Pradeep KP on Gauri Lankesh

Bengaluru, Jul 2: Karnataka government has issued a show-cause notice to 18 private hospitals for refusing to admit a 52-year-old patient with influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms, who later died.

According to the notice dated on June 30, a 52-years patient named Bhawarlal Sujani died after he was denied admission by 18 private hospitals.

The patient was taken to these hospitals on Saturday and Sunday for admission on observing some ILI like symptoms. But none of these hospitals admitted in on the pretext of unavailability of bed/ventilators, read the notice.

This is a clear violation of providing medical assistance and admission necessitated under the agreed provision of KPME Registration. They should strictly adhere to the provisions under Sections 11 & 11 A of KPME Act 2017. Private Medical Establishments cannot deny/ refuse/ avoid treatment to patients with Covid-19 and Covid-19 like symptoms, the state Health Department said.

By denying the admission to the deceased patient, your hospitals have violated the provisions of the above-said act. You are liable for legal action in this regard, as per the notice.

The state Health department asked the hospitals to reply as to why action should not be initiated under the relevant Acts. 

New Delhi, Jul 21: A 42-year-old contractual doctor, who was working with Delhi government's National Health Mission, passed away yesterday due to covid-19.

Dr Javed Ali had been on the frontline in the fight against the highly contagious illness since March. He tested positive for coronavirus on June 24 and was hospitalised for treatment over the next three weeks.

For the last 10 days, he was on a ventilator. Yesterday morning, Dr Ali breathed his last at the AIIMS trauma centre. He is survived by his wife and two children - a six-year-old son and a 12-year-old daughter.

"I am proud of my husband. He kept working till the end and he is a martyr. He did not take even one day off since March. He worked even on Eid," Dr Heena Kausar, his wife, told media persons.

The cost for the initial treatment at the private hospital was also borne by the family. "No treatment cost was covered when he was at a private hospital initially. We spent around Rs 6 lakh from our own pockets," she said.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.