Ashok Kumar Vs. The Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital & Anr. | Case No. 2437/1121(UDID)/2021/12/4016-18 | Dated:22-02-22

 In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre,New Delhi-110002

Phone-23216003-04,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 2437/1121(UDID)/2021/12/4016-18            Dated: 22-02-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar,
J-7, Keval Park, Azad Pur, 
Delhi-110033.
(Email: jantakasewak1@gmail.com)        ……………..Complainant

Versus

The Medical Superintendent,
Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110054.
(Email: msbjrmh.delhi@nic.in)         …………….Respondent No.1

The Pr. Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
GNCT of Delhi, 9thLevel, A-wing,
I.P. Estate, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.                 …………….Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing: 22.02.2022

Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, Complainant

Shri Rahul Jain, Counsel of the Complainant

Dr.Seema, Chairman (Disability Board), BJRMH, on behalf of Respondent No.1

Dr.YogeshKataria, DHS, on behalf of Respondent No.2

ORDER

Shri Ashok Kumar, the complainant vide email dated 06.11.2021 filed a complaint against Dr. A.K. Saini, Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospitalunder the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The complainant inter-alia alleged that Dr. A.K. Saini, M.S., BJRM had issued forged disability certificate No. DL0240419630002711 dated 20.01.2021 to Shri L.N. Sharma, working as Pharmacist in the same hospital indicating permanent Hearing Impairment disability (both ears) as 95%. He further alleged that Shri L.N. Sharma can perform various activities like driving, hearing over telephone and may try to avail the benefits like double T.A. on the basis of forged disability certificate. He further submitted that Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. Accounts Officers is saving both the officers.  The complainant has requested to take strict against them. 

2. The matter was taken up with the Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 07.12.2021 followed by reminder dated 12.01.2022. However, no response was received.

3. The complainant vide letter received in this Court on 28.01.2022 submitted that he is receiving threats from some unsocial elements who are pressurising him to take back the complaint.  He further added that if any harm is done to him or his family, Dr. A.K. Saini and Shri L.N. Sharma be held responsible.  A hearing was therefore scheduled on 22.02.2022.

4. During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions and added that during his visit to BJRMH, Shri L.N. Sharma misbehaved with him on the issue of non availability of certain medicines.  Representative of Respondent No.1 submitted reply dated 21.02.2022  vide which it was submitted that Shri L.N. Sharma, Pharmacist has been working in BJRMH since 01.04.2008.  Copies of Disability Certificates issued to him in the year 2015 and 2021 were also furnished and was submitted that record of Disability Certificates have been checked and found to be genuine.  It was further submitted that the certificates have been issued on the basis of the prevalent guidelines and parameters for disability of Hearing Impairment of the person by the Disability Board.  It was also added that only the ‘Disability Board’ is authorised to issue the Disability Certificate and Medical Superintendent of the Hospital has no role to issue a Disability Certificate.  Therefore, the allegation of connivance of M.S. in issuing the Disability Certificate is completely denied.  Shri L.N. Sharma has applied for claiming the double TA as applicable but the same has not yet been considered by the Hospital Authorities.

5. After due deliberation and discussion, it was observed by the Court that the allegation of connivance of Medical Superintendent in issuing the Disability Certificate is not correct.  However, with regard to genuineness of the Disability Certificate and other issues, it is recommended that:-

(i) A fresh Board be constituted by Respondent No.1 to assess the disability of Shri L.N. Sharma, Pharmacist and check whether he can drive with or without Hearing Aid taking into account the orders of the Ministry of Surface Transport, Govt. of India, on the subject.

(ii) Respondent No.1 in consultation with R.T.O. concerned should see if Shri L.N. Sharma, Pharmacistcan be allowed to drive with 95% Hearing Impairment and can a Driving License be issued to him taking into account his disability. 

(ii) Respondent No.1 should counsel and sensitise Shri L.N. Sharma, Pharmacist and other staff of the Hospital for their behaviour towards general public visiting the Hospital and ensure a cordial and civilised environment at all times.

6. This court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

7. The complaint is disposed of with the above recommendations.

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of February, 2022. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Smt. Tanuja M/o Ms. Amisha Vs. HOS Rashtriya Virja Nand Andh Kanya Vidyalya & Anr. | Case No. 2431/1032/2021/12/3833-35 Dated: 02-02-2022

 In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25-D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2431/1032/2021/12/3833-35                    Dated: 02-02-2022

In the matter of:

Smt. Tanuja M/o Ms. Amisha,
R/o A-136, Jwala Puri Camp No-4,
Sunder Vihar, New Delhi-110087.                    ………………..Complainant

Versus

The HOS/Principal,
Rashtriya Virja Nand Andh Kanya Vidyalya,
Main Ring Road, J-Block,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018.                           ………………..Respondent No. 1

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054                        ………………..Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 02.02.2022

Present: Sh. Neilmani, Counsel for Complainant

Ms. Hemlata Jaimini, Manager, RashtriyaVirja Nand Andh Kanya Vidyalya,Vikaspuri, New Delhi, on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Ms. Nitu Bisht, Section Officer, DOE and Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Asstt., DOE(IEB), on behalf of Respondent No.2

ORDER

Ms. Tanuja M/o Ms. Amisha, a person with visual impairment filed a complaint dated 26.11.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act.The complainant submitted that her daughter is studying in Class-X in Rashtriya Virja Nand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya, Vikaspuri, New Delhi and HoS/ Principal of the said school has denied her daughter to provide the hostel facility. The complainant had also made some other allegations against the school.  She has requested this court to help her to provide the hostel facility to her daughter.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No.1 & 2 vide letter dated 03.12.2021. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 11.12.2021 submitted that the Hostel Authority had made a policy after reopening of school after Covid Lockdown that the students who have some health issues should continue taking online classes as it would be safe for them to not stay in hostel. The complainant was advised to keep her daughter at home and take online classes for her betterment.  It was further submitted that the allegations made against the school authorities are completely false.  Letters were also sent to the complainant to send her daughter to attend the school and join the revision classes for pre board and Board Examinations but she refused to take the letter.  It was further submitted that the school authorities are totally devoted to the betterment of the visually impaired students and the rules made in the school are also for the betterment of the students.

3. The complainant vide rejoinder dated 05.01.2022 submitted that the reply furnished by the Respondent No.2 is not correct and she is not satisfied with the reply.  Upon considering the response of the Respondent No.1 and rejoinder filed by the complainant, a hearing was scheduled in the matter on 02.02.2022.  

4. The complainant and the child were not present as the child was suffering from fever, as informed.The Counsel of the complainant reiterated the submissions filed by the complainant and also submitted that the child had an Appendix operation, which is not infectious, on the basis of which the school authorities denied the hostel facility to the child.  He also added that it is difficult for a visual impaired person to take online classes from home and requested that the child be allowed to avail the hostel facility.  Legal Asstt. present on behalf of Respondent No.2 submitted that the child was earlier provided the hostel facility and school authorities may consider providing the same to the child.

5. The representative of Respondent No.1 submitted that the child was not denied hostel facility because of her Appendix operation but due to Covid pandemic and low immunity level, the chances of infection increases and thats why she was advised to stay at home and take online classes through the recordings sent on mobile phone.  Further, it was also informed that the child is not well and therefore not attending the classes.  Moreover, the hostel facility is meant for students from outside Delhi.  If there is any vacancy in the hostel, other students are also considered for hostel facility.  It was also submitted by the Manager of the School Authorities that the child did not appeared for pre-board exams just because of not being provided hostel facility and also there were several behavioural issues of the child which was not cordial and she was also involved in some unwanted activities detrimental to other inmates.

6. After due deliberation and discussion, it was observed by the Court that the complainant/child was not cooperating with the school authorities and not behaving properly.  However, taking an empathetic view in the matter and request of the complainant, it is recommended that:-

(i) The school authorities may consider accommodating the child if vacancy exist in the hostel.  The complainant/child should give an undertaking, format of which is to be given by the school authorities, to the effect that the child will behave in a disciplined manner and follow all instructions/ guidelines issued by the school and hostel authorities.

(ii) The Counsel of the complainant was advised to counsel the child alongwith the guardian so as to ensure proper behaviour and remain disciplined in the school and hostel and to follow the instructions/guidelines. 

7. This court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

8. The complaint is disposed of with the above recommendations.

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 02nd day of February, 2022. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities