HC seeks State’s reply on mobile care for rare disability

A division bench comprising Justice S Manikumar and Justice P T Asha on noting that the State and Centre had failed to file a counter despite a direction issued on January 28, said, “The petitioner has specifically stated that the disease viz Becker Muscular Dystrophy he is suffering from is worsening and that there are others. Considering the grievances of the petitioner and others affected with muscular diseases, the statutory obligation under 25, 28 read with Section 25(2)(a) and 47(1)(b) of the Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, it is expected that the Governments both, Central and State, should respond forthwith, which in this case has not been done even after eight months.” The petitioner L.

Muruganantham of Dharapuram in Tiruppur District while seeking strict compliance of all those contained under Section 25(1)(b), 25(1)(c) and 25(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 so as to ensure free health care of persons with disabilities sought the Government to maintain registries, undertake research and development and undertake sufficient funds for health care of persons with rare genetic diseases.

Also, seeking to induct disability and rare genetic diseases as component for all education courses for doctors, nurses, para-medical personnel, the petitioner through another prayer sought the Court to direct the State to ensure there is adequate number of doctors, nurses, para-medical personnel, other human resources, adequate equipment, vehicles and infrastructure to provide health care for persons with disabilities and rare genetic diseases free of cost.