12 July 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a recent judicial review, a court addressed significant concerns regarding the adequacy of medical facilities within educational institutions in Maharashtra. The case of Surekha Luxman Sonovane vs The State of Maharashtra, The Principal Secretary of Higher Technical Education Department, Mumbai & Others emerged from a tragic incident involving Tejuswini, a final-year diploma student at a Polytechnic College in Kandivali, Mumbai, who collapsed in her classroom and ultimately passed away due to a hemorrhage. Her parents filed a petition alleging negligence by the college and the hospitals involved, claiming that inadequate medical facilities and delayed response contributed to her death. They sought compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs.

The petition highlighted the broader issue of insufficient medical infrastructure in educational institutions. It was argued that the college lacked essential medical resources, including an ambulance, and that this inadequacy led to a delay in Tejuswini's treatment. Despite these claims, the college contended that it had taken all reasonable steps and pointed to pre-existing health conditions of the student as a factor in her death. The Human Rights Commission previously found no negligence on the part of the college.

 

 

The court, acknowledging the limits of its writ jurisdiction in addressing disputed facts and awarding damages, decided not to delve into these aspects. Instead, the court focused on the larger systemic issue raised by the petition. It directed state authorities to ensure that educational institutions are equipped with adequate medical facilities. This includes mandating first aid services, emergency protocols, and collaboration with local medical providers.

A significant outcome of this case is the directive issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department of Maharashtra. A circular dated July 10, 2024, mandates all educational institutions to establish comprehensive first aid facilities, including a designated sick room, first aid kits, medical training, and partnerships with nearby healthcare providers. The circular also stipulates the appointment of coordinators to manage emergencies and ensure compliance.

However, the circular lacks specific consequences for non-compliance. The court recommended that the state develop mechanisms to monitor adherence to these directives, including publicizing the circular, providing a helpline for reporting deficiencies, and issuing similar directives from the Education Department.

In conclusion, while the petition for compensation was denied, the court’s decision marks a crucial step towards improving medical preparedness in educational institutions, aiming to safeguard students' health and safety. The assistance of Amicus Curiae in this case was acknowledged and appreciated, reflecting the importance of judicial oversight in addressing such critical issues.