BEFORE THE HONOURBALE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION.
THIRUVANATHAPURAM
O.P.No.397
OF 2004
3rd November, 2004.
Dr. A.K.Sabhapathy
vs Corporation of Cochin
O R D E R
The question as to
how the "BIO MEDICAL" waste generated in the Hospitals can
effectively be disposed of and thus prevent the ill effects therefrom to public
?, even today remains a problematic question.
The answer however,
depends upon the construction of the relevant rules in The BIO-MEDICAL WASTE
(MANAGEMENT AND HANDLING RULES) 1998 for short, The Rules.
The clauses in The Rules, relevant
in the context, are:
Sub
Rule 5 Rule 3 defines the Bio-Medical Waste this, "BIO-MEDICAL WASTE"
means any waste, which is generated during the diagnosis, treatment or Immunisation
of human beings or animals in research activities pertaining thereto or in the
production of testing of biologicals and including categories mentioned in
Schedule I.
Category 1 and
Category 8 in The 1st schedule govern the issue Category 1 prescribes
incineration or deep burial for treatment and disposal of human anatomical
waste, human tissues, organs, body parts, Category No.8; the liquid waste
generated from Laboratory and washing, cleaning, house keeping and disinfecting
activities by chemical treatment and thereafter the liquid shall be discharged
into drains.
Experiments carried
on in Hospitals by the Pollution Control Board establish beyond doubt that both
the methods suggested by The Rules namely, 'incineration or deep burial' are
not practicable. Deep burial in the
City of Kochi is not allowed. The
following excerpts from the letter, the Member Secretary of The Kerala State
Pollution Control Board, dated 13-03-2004 addressed to the Managing Director,
Westside Hospital is relevant in the context.
For easy reference the letter is reproduced:
"It
is observed that the Bio-Medical Waste is not collected in colour coded
container with emblem as per rules. The
treatment and disposal options for category I type wastes are incineration deep
burial. Deep burial is not allowed in
Cochin city area as per rule and the board is not encouraging installation of
incinerater in individual health care institutions.
Regarding
the installation PAB reactor this is to inform that the reactor is not a treatment
option approved as per Bio-Medical Waste Rule".
The problems pointed
out by the Member Secretary are the problems the Hospitals in In4dia,
particularly4 in Kerala, a coastal area, generally are confronted with. It shall in 4this connection 4be remembered
that incineration in fact is a pollutant.
A reference to 'Stocicholm Declaration' to which The Nation is committed
is relevant in the context. Developed
countries therefore are shunning incineration as a treatment and disposal
system. Deep burial, unless carried out
scientifically, will turn out to be another polluting agency. This system cannot uniformally be introduced
because "There is 6000 Kms long coast line in India" observation of
The Supreme Court. Vide 1996 (5) SCC
281 at 284. That means as in Kerala,
"Deep Burial" along the 6000 Kms is not possible.
The Rules thus are
impossible of implementation even according to Authorities constituted to
administer. The Rules. If that be so it must be held that The Rules
do not compel. The Hospital Management, in any event in Kerala to comply with
The Rules and dispose of the Bio-Medical Waste generated in The Hospitals. A reference in this connection to the well
established principle of interpretation of Statutes and Rules framed
thereunder, is relevant. The principle
is stated thus. "The law does not
compel a man to do that which he cannot possible perform. "Lex Non Cogit Ad
impossiblia". This maxim is also
known as impotentia excuses legem. It
means that "impotentia excuses
when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory
part of the law or to forbear the prohibitory". Vide Brooms Legal Maxims, Tenth edition Page 162.
The position is
highlighted by Lord Dundin in Whitney IRC *1926) AC 37 at 52 thus:
"A
statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by a Court
should be to secure that object, unless crucial omission or clear direction
makes that end unattainable".
This principle is
noted with approval by the Supreme Court in C.I.T. Vs. Tej Singh AIR 1999 SC
352 at 356. Though repetition, the
finding of the Pollution Control Board revealed by the letter of the Secretary
reproduced supra, makes it clear that in any event, so far as the Hospitals in
Kerala, particularly in Kochi, there is the invincible disability to perform
the mandatory duty caste on them by The Rules.
In otherwords the authority concerned cannot insist upon the disposal of
Bi-Medical Waste adopting the methods prescribed by The Rules.
However, some other
methods shall be evolved to prevent the ill effects to the public created by
the Bio-Medical Waste generated in the Hospitals. The Association of private Nursing Homes and Hospitals
"QPMPA" per force had to search for a competent authority to suggest
ways and means to effectively dispose of the Bio-Medical Waste generated in the
Hospitals. The Association could locate
an expert body. "The School of
Environmental Studies, Cochin Univerisity of Science and Technology, to develop
Eco-friendly, appropriate and economic altermate method to dispose of the
Bio-Medical waste within the Health Care Institution itself.
The CUSAT developed a
methodology after conducting research and with reference to The Rules. They are, "The Placents Anaerobic
Bio-Reactor" (PAB) and "Body Parts Anaerobic Bio Reactor"
(BPAB). The research report forms part
of this order. Particular reference to
the following statements in the report is advantageous.
"For those hospitals which are
installing, PAB/BPAB Reactors, human anatomical waste, organs and body parts
(wastes of category 1 & 2 in Schedule I) on generation, are not wastes as
these are not discarded as such, but further processed in Reactors. Thus, they need not go in for the disposal
options of deep burial/incineration.
But for those hospitals which do not install, PAB/BPAB Reactors, the
disposal option for the anatomical wastes are only deep
Burial/.incineration".
The discussion above
clearly indicates that the installation of PAB/BPAB Reactors is within the
Rules, governing hospitals, nursing centers and health care units all over the
Country.
The inferences irresistible in the
circumstances are:
(1) The method of treating the Bio-Medical Waste prescribed by
The Rules even according to the Controlling Board, is not suitable.
(2) The methodology suggested by the CUSAT, the Expert Body on
Environmental Matters, necessarily shall be adopted in the absence of any other
methodology suggested by any expert body to manage the Bio-Medical Waste in
Hospitals. It shall in this connection
be remembered that the report authored by the Research Centre at the CUSAT, a
University recognized internationally as a University on a per with any other
Research University in the world, makes it clear that the installation of
PAB/BPAB Reactors is within The Rules and less expensive. The methodology suggested by the CUSAT, the
Pollution Control Board in not prepared to accept because The Report (submitted
by CUSAT) "is not a treatment option approved as per Bio-Medical Waste
Rules". That however means the
methodology though, cannot be accepted as it does not form part of The Rules.
As already stated,
The Rules as such are impossible of implementation,. But that does not means that the Hospitals can adopt their own
methods of disposing of Bio-Medical Waste.
There must be uniformity. This
can be accomplished if the report of the Expert body of CUSAT is introduced in
all the Hospitals.
1) I ACCORDINGLY ORDER ALL THE Local Authorities shall issue
directions to all the Hospitals and Health Care institutes to install in their
respective areas, PAB and BPAB within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of the direction.
2) Copies of this Order, The Director of Urban Affairs shall
forward to all the Corporation and Municipalities to enable them to implement
the order and The Director of Panchayat shall forward copies of This Order to
all the Panchayats to enable them to implement the Order.
The petition is
allowed in the manner stated above.
Sd/-
Justice
K.P.Radhakrishna Menon
Ombudsman.
The Secretary,
Ombudsman, shall forward copies of This Order and the Report of the Expert
Committee of CUSAT to.
1)
The Hon'ble Minister
for Health, Kerala.
2)
The Hon'ble Minister
for Local belt Government Department of Kerala.
3)
The Director of Urban
Affairs.
4)
The Additional
Director, Ministry of Enviroinment & Forest, Government of India,
Paryavaran Bhavan, C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
5)
Dr.Bhiswal, Chairman,
Central Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhavan CBD cum Office Complex, East
Arjun Nagar, New Delhi-110 032.
6)
Dr.Sen Guptha, Member
Secretary, Central Pollution Control Boazrd, Parivesh Bhavan, CBD cum Office
Complex, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi-110032.
7)
The Ministry of
Environment, New Delhi.
8)
The Secretary, Local
Self Government Department of Kerala.
9)
The Secretary, health
Department of Kerala.