The Covid-19 pandemic reiterates the importance of Public Health systems. The private health sector which accounts for 70% of healthcare services in India, is playing only a supporting role.

There is a need to address the constraints and revamp of the public health system in India which would not only enable improved handling of Covid-19, but would also have widespread positive impacts extending much beyond the Covid-19 situation.

Covid-19 And Significance of Public Health Care

• For Indian population, the availability of functional public health systems is literally a question of life and death.
• A robust government health-care service is translated into a more effective outreach, timely testing, early case detection and more rational treatment for Covid patients. This is evident by comparing two States— Maharashtra and Kerala. Their per capita gross State domestic product (GSDP) is similar. However, their Covid-19 case fatality rates are hugely different — this being 0.48% for Kerala and 2.04% for Maharashtra.
• A major reason for such critical divergence is likely to be the huge differences in the effectiveness of public health systems. Kerala has per capita two and a half times more government doctors, and an equally higher proportion of government hospital beds when compared to Maharashtra, while allocating per capita over one and half times higher funds on public health every year.
• Despite Maharashtra having a large private health-care sector, its weak public health system has proved to be a critical deficiency.

Issues With Current Healthcare System

• Lack of Primary Healthcare Services: The existing public primary health care model in the country is limited in scope. Even where there is a well-functioning public primary health centre, only services related to pregnancy care, limited childcare and certain services related to national health programmes are provided.
• Supply-Side Deficiencies: Poor health management skills and lack of appropriate training and supportive supervision for health workers prevent delivery of the desired quality of health services.
• Inadequate Funding: Expenditure on public health funding has been consistently low in India (approximately 1.3% of GDP). As per OECD, India’s total out-of-pocket expenditure is around 2.3 % of GDP.
• Sub-optimal Public Health System: Due to this, it is challenging to tackle Non-communicable Diseases, which is all about prevention and early detection. It diminishes preparedness and effective management for new and emerging threats such as pandemic like Covid-19.

What can be done?

• Focus On Public Health:
  • Need for a larger programme which requires the immediate attention is the National Health Mission (NHM); since 2017-18, Union government allocations for the NHM have declined in real terms, resulting in inadequate support to States for core activities such as immunisation, while systemic gaps affect the delivery of Covid-19 vaccination.
  • The condition of the National Urban Health Mission (NUHM) also remains pathetic.
    • This year’s Central allocation for the NUHM is ₹1,000 crore, which amounts to less than ₹2 per month per urban Indian.
• Private Sector Regulation:
  • Another clear priority that has been highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic is the need to regulate rates and standards of care in the private sector.
  • Massive hospital bills have caused untold distress even among the middle class.
  • Although various determinants have contributed to the Mucormycosis outbreak, irrational use of steroids in Covid-19 patients, especially diabetics, appears to be an important factor.
  • The central government should take necessary steps to promote the implementation of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act (CEA).
    • Passed in 2010 and presently applicable to 11 States across India, this Act is not effectively implemented due to a major delay in notification of central minimum standards, and failure to develop the central framework for regulation of rates.
• NITI Aayog Prescriptions:
  • NITI Aayog has recently published the document, ‘Investment Opportunities in India’s Healthcare Sector’.
  • The document states that ‘in the hospital segment, the expansion of private players to Tier 2 and Tier 3 locations, beyond metropolitan cities, offers an attractive investment opportunity’.
  • Manufacturing of medical devices and equipment, expansion of diagnostic and pathology centres and miniaturized diagnostics have high growth potential.
  • Technology advancements such as Artificial Intelligence, wearables and other mobile tech, along with the Internet of Things, also offer numerous avenues for investment.

Conclusion

Existing evidence from the Covid-19 pandemic provides a clear message that a neglect of public health systems can mean large-scale, avoidable losses of lives; hence, public health services must be upgraded rapidly and massively as a topmost priority.

At some point in life we all have heard the dating phrase “it’s not you, it’s me”, but in case of a single mother they are usually left out with a heartbreak and the saying change as “it’s not you, it’s your child”. Our restrictive culture portrays that a second chance is not meant for a single mom. Our patriarchal society demonstrates that if a person is dating a single mother then he is doing a great offense but we never try to image the scrutiny of society she has to tackle. Society pictures that dating a single mother is impossible and in case it is possible it is not accepted.

Life of women is very difficult weather it’s her life before marriage or after marriage. Many women face a lot of harassment plus mental as well as sexual abuse after their marriage which ultimately results in split-up of the couple. Our patriarchal society is so cruel that getting divorce is acceptable but dating a single mom is not tolerable. If a married women who have child practice dating then she is always asked to put the child interest as the first preference. The reason behind single mom refuse to date is the social stigma they have to face. Whatever is the situation the one who is always considered in the faulty side is the women only and the amount of social scrutiny she have to face is numerous. Dating of a mom is not acceptable in India and is considered as a massive ill but taking dowry is referred as a ritual and this is the bitter reality. People often criticize others situation but the trauma one suffers is inexpressible. Dating a mother is like a shame and thus women ultimately decides to either quit the relationship or simply never approaching. If a woman is having a child it is just well-thought-out as a liability or we can simply say a burden which is in the form of joint custody of the child, all the expenses of the child which includes their schooling, tuition and all extra expenses. A divorced woman is always subjected to gossips and if she is an independent mother then definitely she has to tolerate a lot of humiliations and blabbermouths. A counselor from Mumbai, Mr. Narendra Kinger expresses his view that men feels extremely threatened as women’s give their first preference to their child. Every person needs a support in their life and same goes in case of single mom too as even they need companion in their life but keeping the child at the forefront is mandatory for women.

A single woman who has a child usually encounters a lot of difficulties and barrier in her mundane dating life. We all are living at a free democratic country where we have the right to go with our own will then why a mother is always subjected with questionable eyes if she is dating? Only we can change our society by changing our outdated thinking plus we have to modify our patriarchal society to a society which treats everyone equally.

As humans continue to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the planet’s oceans have changed due to it. The seas have absorbed more than 90% of the heat from the harmful gases. Scientists constantly express their concerns regarding climate change, describing the complex shifts now affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems. Rising sea levels are one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels have risen over 23 cm since 1880, with every year, the sea level rising 3.2 mm in height.

The change in sea levels is linked to three primary factors:

• Thermal expansion:

When water heats up, it expands. About half of the sea-level rise over the past 25 years is attributable to warmer oceans occupying more space.

• Melting glaciers:

Large ice formations such as mountain glaciers naturally melt to an extent each summer. This is followed by heavy snow and thick icebergs in the winters, thus maintaining balance in the environment. But since the last few decades, due to climate change, the natural summer ice melting lasts longer than usual. The atmosphere is so hot that even in the winter the cold isn’t able to re-freeze all the melted ice, thus, causing sea levels to rise.

• Loss of Greenland and Antarctica’s ice sheets:

Due to large amounts of heat accumulating on either side of the planet, the land on and around the poles, Greenland and Antarctica, are losing massive ice sheets making it melt more quickly. Scientists also believe that melted water from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland’s ice sheets, lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea.

Even a small increase in sea level, have devastating effects on coastal habitats, it can cause destructive erosion, wetland flooding, aquifer and agricultural soil contamination with salt, and destruction of habitat for fish, birds, and plants. Higher sea levels along with dangerous hurricanes and typhoons move more slowly resulting in heavy rain, contributing to more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path. Already, flooding in low-lying coastal areas is forcing people to migrate to higher ground, and millions more are vulnerable from flood risk and other climate change effects. The prospect of higher coastal water levels threatens basic services such as Internet access, since much of the underlying communications infrastructure lies in the path of rising seas.

While all coastal cities will be affected by sea-level rises, some will be hit much harder than others. About four out of every five people impacted by sea-level rise by 2050 will live in East or South-East Asia. US cities, especially those on the East and Gulf coasts, are similarly vulnerable. More than 90 US coastal cities are already experiencing chronic flooding every year and that number is expected to double by 2030. About 3 in every 4 European cities, will be hit hard by massive flooding. Africa is also highly threatened, due to rapid urbanization in coastal cities and the crowding of poor populations in informal settlements along the coast. Big cities like New York, Mumbai, Tokyo, Shanghai, to name a few, are all predicted to go under water in just a few decades if no action is taken. Only a few nations, like Singapore, Finland, New Zealand, Austria, are taking this dangerous situation seriously and spending billions of dollars to build infrastructure to protect itself from potential destruction in the future.

GLOUCESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL CASE

Facts: In this case, the defendant was a school teacher who used to work in plaintiff school. Due to some conflicts which arose between the defendant and plaintiff, defendant had left the school. Later, he set up a rival school next to that of plaintiff. Defendant school teacher was very popular for his teaching. Boys from the plaintiff school left it and started to join in defendant�s school, because of this competition the plaintiff had to reduce them from 40peneace to 12penance. The plaintiff sued defendant for monetary loss occurred.

Issues Raised In This Case:

1. Can defendant be held responsible for the monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff, just because he had fixed a rival school and damaged the right of plaintiff?
2. Did this case cover the essentials of Damnum sine injuria? And if yes then the defendant couldn�t be held liable?

Judgement:
It was held by court that; no suit could lie. It was held by court of law that defendant couldn�t be held liable. The court stated that:
compensation is no ground of action even though the monetary loss is caused, but if no legal right is violated.

It also further stated that, the defendant had lawfully set up his own school and he nowhere violated any legal right of plaintiff.

It was believed by the court that, students liked the teaching style of defendant, hence it was at the discretion of the students to study in which ever school they want to.

Appellant has no right to stop the defendant to run a business as a competition to his school.

Case Analysis:
Law of Torts is understood to be An instrument to form people adhere to conduct of reasonable behavior and respect the rights and interests of one another.

1. And the same are kept in mind while giving the judgment of the case at the top of the decision of the law of court.
2. The case which we discussed above is related to An act which caused damage but no legal right is infringed or compromised
3. This is known as Damnum Sine injuria which means: Damage without legal injury.

The decision taken in the case GLOUCESTER GRAMMER SCHOOL, was also applied to the similar case Chasemore vs Richards (1859). In this case the plaintiff was running a mill on his own land, and for the same purpose he was using stream water for a long time. The well which was dug in his own land did cut the supply of underground water supply.

Damnum Sine Injuria:

This is a legal maxim in law of torts which deals with damages caused without injury. So it basically deals with the damages caused where there is no involvement of infringement of legal rights. Since there is no infringement of legal rights to any particular person, hence this cannot be enforced in court of law.

The mere fact that a man is injured by another’s act gives in itself no cause of action; if the act is deliberate, the party injured will have no claim in law even though the injury is intentional, so long as the other party is exercising a legal right.

Damnum sine Injuria is a Latin word, which mean DAMAGE WITHOUT INJURY, and hence the word itself clearly establishes that if a person suffers from any kind of damage, but if there is no Inter vision with the legal rights of a person, then neither it can be enforced in the court of law, nor a person can claim any compensation.

The maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is dived into three parts:

1. Damnum includes anything which is related to substantial loss, harm, damage with respect to money, health etc.
2. Injuria means infringement of a right given by the law by the plaintiff
3. Sine means without

The general principle on which this maxim is based upon is that if one exercises his common or ordinary rights, within reasonable limits, and without infringing others legal right; such an exercise does not give rise to an action in tort in favor of that other person. Damages can be in any form either in the form of any substantial harm or loss suffered from respect to the money, comfort, health, etc.

RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 is one of the landmark cases of tort law.  In this case, The House of Lords laid down the rule recognizing ‘No Fault’ liability. The ‘Rule of Strict Liability’ originated in this case. By this rule, a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same. Further, this case paved the way for ‘The Rule Of Absolute liability’ in India.

Judges (sitting)

 Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth

Decided on

17 July 1868

Major contribution of the case

‘The Rule of Strict Liability’ originated in this case.

Facts of the case

The defendant, Rylands got a reservoir constructed, through independent contractors, over his land for providing water to his mill. There were some old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to observe. So they didn’t block the shafts. When water was filled within the reservoir, it burst through the shafts. As a result plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land was flooded. The defendant didn’t know about the shafts and he had not been negligent although the independent contractors had been. The negligence was on the part of independent contractors. Since the plaintiff, Fletcher has to suffer losses, he sued defendants.

Issues raised

• Whether there was any nuisance or not?
• Was the use of Defendant’s land unreasonable and thus was he to be held liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff?

Judgment

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and agreed with the six Exchequer judges. Lord Cairns, while speaking for the House of Lords, stated their agreement of the rule stated above by Justice Blackburn in the court of Exchequer Chamber but included a further limitation on liability. The one more requirement is that the land from which the escape occurs must have been modified in a way which would be considered non-natural, unusual or inappropriate.  The decision of House of Lords added a requirement that the use be ‘non-natural’. The judgement of this case was delivered on 17 July. In this the court consisted of only two judges, Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth; Lord Colonsay didn’t attend the case.

Three essentials, for the application of the Rule of Strict Liability

• Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.

According to this rule, the liability for the escape of thing from one’s land arises when the thing collected was a dangerous thing. It means a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes. In Rylands v. Fletcher, the dangerous thing was a very large body of water

• The thing thus brought or kept by an individual on his land must escape.

For the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must escape to the world outside the occupation and control of the defendant

• It must be non-natural use of land.

Water collected within the reservoir in such an enormous quantity in Rylands v. Fletcher was held to be non-natural use of land. In order to show that, the use is non-natural, it must be shown that use is some special use bringing with it increased danger to others.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

A number of defences to the rule of strict liability too  was developed in this case and some later cases:

• Escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default
• Escape was a consequence of vis major
• Consent of the plaintiff
• Act of third party
• Statutory authority

Impact of the case in India

In M. C. Mehta v. Union Of India, the Supreme court took a bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the 19th-century rule of English law. The honourable Supreme Court said it could evolve a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions prevailing in India at the present day. It evolved the rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ as a  part of Indian law in preference to the rule of Strict Liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher. This rule was not subject to any of the exceptions under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The defences to the Rule of Strict Liability can be used by the persons who had established ‘hazardous and inherently dangerous’ industries to escape the liability for the havoc caused, by pleading some exceptions. So to remove that grey area and in order to increase accountability on the part of persons engaged in such kind of activities, the rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ has been evolved in India.

Conclusion

Ryland vs. Fletcher played a great role in deciding owners’ liability when he is bringing any dangerous object in his premises. It was necessary to have a law that could increase the duty of the owner. So that he can be more careful while bringing any dangerous object in his premises. The world is progressing very fast and in this era of industrialization, privatisation and globalization disputes regarding the duty of care are burgeoning rapidly so there was a need for a law that could solve these problems. This was done in this case. In the context of India, this  Rule of strict liability paved the way for ‘The Rule of Absolute Liability’ in India.