According to Live Law, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench found that at least 113 of the 150 ventilators issued by the Centre under the PM CARES Fund were defective.
“Let the government realise they had supplied inferior quality ventilators, let them go back and replace them with certain good quality ventilators,” the court said. “If the PM CARES Fund is to be used for providing ventilators, it should be ventilators worthy of medical use, and if they are not worthy of medical use, it’s just a box.”
Justices Ravindra Ghuge and DU Bedabwar were hearing a suo motu criminal public interest lawsuit on the management of the coronavirus crisis in Maharashtra’s Marathwada district.
As per The Indian Express, the HC said, “We find the condition around faulty ventilators through the PM Cares fund to be very serious…ventilators are considered to be lifesaving devices, and malfunctioning can bring the lives of patients in jeopardy.” If the equipment is found to be defective, the court has also requested Additional Solicitor General Ajay G Talhar to notify it of the corrective steps.
The comments came after the Government Medical College and Hospital in Aurangabad informed the court that the ventilators submitted under the PM CARES initiative had been refused. The hospital stated that a patient has been hypoxic, which is a medical word for someone who is having trouble breathing.
The court ordered the central government to keep track of the corrective actions taken in the case. It also requested that the Centre notify the court of the expected proceedings against the firm that supplied the ventilators.
“The company should not get away with this,” the High Court said, according to Live Law. “It’s the state ex-chequers money; it’s not bounty to be distributed.”
The court observed that 17 of the 150 ventilators were used by the Government Medical College and Hospital, 41 were sent to private hospitals that did not charge patients for the ventilators, and 55 were distributed outside of Aurangabad.
According to Live Rule, the dean of the hospital claimed in his submission that the 17 unreliable ventilators had defects that would severely affect the care of patients who used the devices.
The court also noted that a member of the Legislative Assembly had been testing the ventilators, according to a news article. This politician, on the other hand, has no links to the hospital.
The High Court bench added that politicians were making contrary statements that were not in good taste. “We find it to be distasteful as some politicians have visited the hospital posing as if they have knowledge or expertise to inspect the ventilators and recommend correctional methods,” the court said.
