Kerala HC asks state govt to provide details on safety of hospitals after Kottayam MCH building collapse
Kerala High Court directs the state government to provide detailed information on the administration and safety standards of public medical facilities.
Kerala High Court directs the state government to provide detailed information on the administration and safety standards of public medical facilities.
Kerala High Court directs the state government to provide detailed information on the administration and safety standards of public medical facilities.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the state government to provide detailed information regarding the administration and safety standards of public medical facilities in the aftermath of the collapse of the Kottayam Medical College building. The court's directive comes in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed to address safety concerns at governmental health facilities across the state.
The Court has directed the Secretary of Health and Family Affairs to file a comprehensive report on the composition and functioning of the State Council established under the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018, the primary legislation governing public health facilities in the State.
During the hearing, the division bench, comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, outlined the specific functions of the State Council, including regular inspections of clinical establishments and mandatory submission of data and information by these institutions. The court also emphasised the need for a grievance redressal mechanism under Section 36 of the Act and asked whether it is being implemented in the state.
The court has also sought clarity on whether hospital information is mandatorily displayed on the website of the Kerala Clinical Establishment Council, as required under the Act. It has also asked the Secretary of the State Council to submit an affidavit describing inspection activities in government hospitals over the last two years and to confirm whether the data has been published on the website.
Earlier, the court criticised the petition for being poorly researched and lacking legal references but agreed to proceed with the case, considering the critical importance of public health and safety. The government pleader also raised preliminary objections, stating that the PIL was vaguely framed, making it challenging to provide a proper response.
(With LiveLaw inputs)