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-2
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No. 4/1362/2016-Wel/CD/1570-71 Dated:
22.08.2017
In the
matter of:
Sh. Vijay Yadav,
72-B, Gali No.11,
Vidyapati Nagar, Mubarakpur Dabas,
New Delhi-110081. .……… Complainant
Versus
The Directors and Others,
Delhi Council for Child Welfare,
Quadasia Bagh, Yamuna Marg,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. …...…Respondent
Date
of hearing: 08.08.2017
Present Sh. Vijay Yadav,
Complainant.
Dr.
Sandhya Bhalla, Sh. S.K. Mishra on
behalf of Respondent.
ORDER
The
above named complainant who is the father of Master Ronak, a person with 50% mental
retardation (intellectual disability) vide his complaint received on 03.08.2016, submitted that Master Ronak was visiting Bal Vikas Kendra,
Nithari Centre for exercises. Ronak’s mother complained against the Speech
Therapist Ms. Neelam as she was using the same spoon to feed honey to different
children. Because of her complaint, Ms.
Neelam and Ms. Sheela told the mother of Ronak that there would not be any
improvement by exercises and therefore, an Arc plate should be fixed. As per
their advice, they took Master Ronak to ESI Hospital, where the doctor told
them that there was no need for Arc Plate.
The mother of Master Ronak who was being provided the therapies in the
morning was asked to bring him in the afternoon after 2.00 pm. They also
approached the higher authorities of Delhi Council for Child Welfare for
providing therapies and other services to Master Ronak in the morning as he
goes to Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya in the morning which is 2.5 kms from their
house. Taking the child to Nithari
Centre for therapies again would be too much for him as the total travel would
be around 10 kms. The complainant further alleged that on 22.07.2016
Ms. Sheela mishaved with his wife and son and pushed them out of the Centre. He
therefore, requested that action should be taken against Ms. Sheela for mental
torture, etc.
2. The complaint was taken up with the
respondent and the concerned District Social Welfare Offficer, Deptt. of Social
Welfare was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a detailed report vide
communication dated 12.08.2016.
3. The DSWO(North West-I) vide her
report dated 29.08.2016 submitted that she alongwith Superintendent Sh. D. Ram
and CDPO, Smt. Savita Malik visited Nithari Centre on 23.08.2016 and observed
the following:
“1. Bal Chetna Nithari Centre is a programme of DCCW which supports mentally and physically challenged children from financially weak families at Nithari Centre.2. On the day of vist rice with black Channa was being served to the beneficiaries.
3. 27 Number of beneficiaries were there in the centre.4. Sign Language instructor, physiotherapist, special educator and speech therapist with their helpers were there.
5. Master Ronak was not coming to the Centre since 2nd May, 2016. Visit was being made to his home on 17th May, 2016 and 14th June, 2016 and they were informed by the neighbours that they had gone to their native place.
6. Master Ronak aged 12 years has been integrated with normal children of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidalaya with the help of DCCW.
7. This is the policy of the centre that children who are enrolled in school will come between 2 pm to 4 pm at the centre.8. Master ronak was allowed to come in the morning on the insistence of his mother for 06 months. He is not deprived off from coming to the centre but is directed to come at the suitable time i.e. (2 pm to 4 pm).9. Land ownership is of the Chopal which has been given to DCCW for running the Nithari Centre.10. Regisgration is of the year 1964.11. License for Pallana is being taken from the Department of WCD.12. Grand in Aid for Aaganwadi Centre is being taken from Deptt. of WCD.13. The fee for each beneficiary varies between Rs/ 10- Rs. 100/- per month depending upon the economic condition of the family.
14. Written statement of staff is enclosed for the day ie. 22.07.2016.”
4. As per the written statement of the
staff and parents, Master Ronak was being provided special education, speech
therapy and physical therapy at the Centre in the morning. As per the rules, Master Ronak was asked to
take OPD services from 2.00 to 4.00 PM.
The parents were not bringing Ronak to the Centre at any fixed time and
were also disturbing other children who were taking therapies from the Centre
regularly. Master Ronak attended the
Centre for 11 days in April, 2016, one day in May, 2016 and he was absent in
the entire month of June, 2016. On 17.05.2016, the staff visited his home as
per the rules, as there was no written information. The house was found locked
and the neighbors informed that they had gone to their home town. On 19.7.2016, Master Ronak’s mother brought
him to the Centre at 12.00 noon and he was given the therapy. His mother was
told by the Special Educator to speak to the supervisor as Master Ronak had not gone to the Centre for the last two months
without information. On 22.07.2016,
Master Ronak was brought to the Centre at 11.45 AM. His mother asked them to provide physical therapy to
Master Ronak when the Supervisor asked Ronak’s mother about the timings for
therapy, she got annoyed and used derogatory language and threatened that she
will get the centre closed.
5. The complainant submitted his
rejoinder on 07.10.2016, whereafter a hearing was scheduled on 08.08.2017.
6. During the hearing on 08.08.2017, the
parties reiterated their written submissions.
The complainant submitted that his son Ronak who is 14 years old was
going to nearby Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya which is over at 12.00 Noon. Travelling from school to his house and again
to the Nithari Centre for therapies at 2.00 PM would be too much for the
child. Therefore he insisted that the
Centre should make adjustments to provide required therapies at least from 1.00
PM. He also stated that Master Ronak was
not getting any therapy after July 2016.
7. The representatives of the respondent
clarified that the Delhi Council for Child Welfare started functioning since
1948 and started Bal Chetna Programme
which was a community based rehabilitation service for providing therapies, physiotherapy and special education,
etc. since 2002. All the parents were
informed about the policy vide circular dated 04.01.2014 that the children of above 12 years and those who have
been integrated in the school would be provided the facilities between 2.00 PM to
4.00 PM at the centre. The said circular also mentioned that the parents of
such children would have to bring their children to the centre and take them
back. The special permission that was given to Master Ronak to attend the
therapies for 15 minutes in the morning was to train his mother to phase out
from the programme. This kind of accommodation is not possible to provide as
they have to accommodate the needs of other children who are also registered
with the organization. They also clarified that the facilities are being
provided out of the funds that are raised by the Organisation on its own and no
Government grant whatsoever, is provided for the services in question. It is not possible to make such an arrangement
in the forenoon or at 1.00 PM as that is the lunch time break for the children
and the teaching staff. However, they
are prepared to give priority to Master Ronak at 2.00 pm to be the first child to
get the therapies. The Organisation is not registered under the Persons with
Disabilities Act, 1995. However, they
plan to register the Organisation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016. They also stated that all the
professionals / therapists have RCI approved qualifications and are also
registered with RCI.
8. From the records mae available by the parties, it is observed that the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016) or any instruction do not obligate the
respondent to provide the services to the son of the complainant or other
children during a particular slot of time. Since the respondent has not denied
any services to Master Ronak between 2.00 PM to 4.00 PM and are willing to
attend to him on priority at 2.00 PM, the complainant may avail the services
during the period it is reasonably feasible
for respondent to provide the same in the interest of Master Ronak. However,
the respondent may consider if it is possible to make further accommodations
for provding the therapies / training to Master Ronak.
9. The respondent is directed to
register under Section 51 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
in accordance with the Rules that the Social Welfare Department, Govt. NCT of
Delhi may frame and notify.
10. The complaint is disposed of
accordingly.
11. Given under my hand and the seal of the
Court this 22nd day of
August, 2017.
(T.D. Dhariyal )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
