Elderly prisoner's choice of private hospital treatment during pandemic surge upheld, with 15-day transfer and attendant ordered

Whether an elderly appellant in custody could be permitted to undergo medical treatment at a private hospital instead of a government hospital was the dominant issue. The HC held that although the government hospital had adequate facilities, the pandemic-related patient influx could impede the personalised attention required for an 84-year-old needing further treatment, and the appellant's expressed choice warranted accommodation. Consequently, the HC directed the authorities to immediately shift the appellant to the private hospital for treatment for 15 days, and requested the hospital administration to provide a continuous attendant for his care.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, considering the appellant's age, medical condition, and the prevailing pandemic situation, the Court should direct that he be shifted from prison custody to a private hospital for medical treatment for a limited period, instead of treatment in a government hospital.

(ii) What ancillary directions are necessary to balance medical care with custody and security requirements during such hospitalisation, including expenses, attendant support, limited visitation, and police guarding.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Direction to shift an undertrial prisoner to a private hospital for limited treatment

Legal framework (as discussed in the judgment): The Court proceeded on the basis of judicial directions governing medical treatment during custody, including its earlier direction for medical evaluation by a committee of doctors, and its power to issue appropriate directions to ensure necessary treatment while the appellant remains an undertrial prisoner.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered that the appellant was 84 years old and, even on the medical findings recorded by a doctors' team, required further treatment. The Court also accepted that a government hospital had adequate doctors and facilities; however, it reasoned that due to the pandemic and influx of patients, it may not be possible for the government hospital to provide the "personal attention" required for an elderly patient. The Court further relied on its prior interaction with the appellant, where he was offered a choice of hospital, and on the later position placed before the Court-supported by an additional affidavit-that the appellant was now willing to be admitted to the private hospital for treatment.

Conclusion: The Court held that, in these circumstances, the appellant should be given the choice of admission in the private hospital and directed the respondents to shift him there immediately for treatment for a period of 15 days from the date of shifting.

Issue (ii): Conditions ensuring treatment while maintaining custody and security

Legal framework (as discussed in the judgment): The Court addressed custodial safeguards consistent with the appellant's status as an undertrial prisoner, while issuing directions necessary to facilitate effective treatment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the submission that the appellant would bear treatment expenses. To address medical needs during hospitalisation, the Court requested the hospital administration to provide one attendant continuously for the appellant. To balance limited access and custodial concerns, it allowed a specified person to meet the appellant subject to hospital protocol. For security, the Court requested the hospital to allow one police constable to guard the appellant during hospitalisation, expressly noting the appellant's undertrial status. The Court also clarified that the order was made in the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case.

Conclusion: The Court imposed and/or requested conditions that (a) the appellant bear all treatment expenses; (b) a continuous attendant be provided by the hospital administration; (c) a limited meeting be permitted subject to hospital protocol; and (d) a police constable be posted in the hospital to guard the appellant during the treatment period, with the order confined to the case's specific circumstances.

---