Appeal Against Refusal To Shift Sonam Wangchuk To Private Hospital : Live Updates From Delhi High Court Hearing

Sibal: He has the right to protest. Hunger strikes are recognized forms of protest. My autonomy cannot be taken away like this. We also said that no treatment should be forced upon him but that should not happen.

Sibal: No emergent situation told to us. I am in hospital. There is trust deficit. It is matter of his choice. If he wishes he will go to another hospital if required. Today he doesn’t want to be restrained leaving those premises. We have three reports all of which were normal.

Sibal: We had also suggested yesterday that let us go where we are comfortable. We said we have already spoken to Medanta. Let him go there if he chooses. If govt doctors want to monitor, they may do so. But I can't be forced to stay there.

Sibal now refers to impugned order passed by the single judge.

Sibal refers to the judgment.

Sibal refers to common cause judgment.

Sibal: The primacy of bodily autonomy, importance of consent…. If the person is conscious, able to write, not yet in life threatening situation, is such a thing justified?

Sibal: On examination he was conscious and oriented. Vitals were stable.

Sibal: Today he has himself written letter to the hospital. Today is culmination of a month long collective protest that he took some part in. He says he is feeling fine today and thus he be allowed to leave hospital to join the march. Thats not been acceded to. What is autonomy that an individual who is not under arrest or detention in terms of deciding to accept medical oversight from which hospital.

Sibal: Is he to be coerced to stay at a place, not allowed to leave?

The person is entitled to give consent and take call of medical advice. Can they be forced?

Court: Any report ought to have been shared with you but for you to say that “could become life threatening”….

Sibal: I am not under arrest or detention. The sequence creates trust deficit. I keep asking that allow me, they give me that report.

Sibal: I say that i would like second opinion and please allow me blood sample so that i can get it tested independently. I gave another representation. I say there is established medical protocol that you can seek discharge against medical advice.

Sibal: Sample collected on July 19. Early morning. Please see the result. Potassium is 3.6, within normal range.

Sibal: If such situation had emerged if he was conscious and this was the report, they had to come back to court and leave had to be taken. Thereafter see my representations to the hospital. I am rushing there. I didn’t even know this was happening. I am visually shown something to say that potassium has dropped. I asked for copy of report. Not shared with me. I give a written representation.

Sibal: I say please don’t administer anything to him without consent. No reports given to us. We are only orally informed of potassium numbers.

Sibal: He is cogent and conscious, not in ICU.

Court: These are reports prepared by doctors. Should a doctor wait for patient to be taken to ICU only then will drug be administered?

Sibal: No consultation. We are not getting the transparency. There is a trust deficiency

Sibal refers to court’s order of July 16 directing medical intervention for Wangchuk if required.

Sibal: Factually, what happens thereafter is that there is monitoring. Separately private doctors are also attending. On July 17, the report has certain parameters.

Sibal: Potassium was 4.3. In afternoon of July 17, potassium is well within normal range. Without any prior intimation or sharing any reports pointing out any emergent situation, with a police force my husband is carried away forcibly. I am not kwpt in loop. He is taken to safdarjung hospital. This was done purportedly under cover of your lordships order.