MP High Court Orders Bombay Hospital Indore to Admit Four-Year-Old Acid Attack Survivor, Directs Cashless Treatment Under Ayushman Card
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore directed Bombay Hospital to immediately admit a four-year-old acid attack survivor and her family, invoking Supreme Court guidelines from Laxmi v. Union of India to secure specialised treatment at State expense.
A four-year-old girl, Shivanghi Chouhan, and her family were subjected to an acid attack on 29 May 2026. Her mother and six-year-old brother also suffered serious burn injuries in the same incident. When the writ petition was filed, all three were receiving treatment at the Community Health Centre, Rajpur, District Barwani. On 18 June 2026, they were discharged from that facility on the ground that it lacked adequate treatment infrastructure. Justice Deepak Khot, sitting singly at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, took up the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution and, on 24 June 2026, directed Bombay Hospital, Indore to admit Shivanghi forthwith and to begin proper treatment the same day, with costs to be met through the family's Ayushman card and, where that falls short, through the District Legal Services Authority.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petition was filed by Shivanghi's natural guardian, Mrs. Salita, through counsel Ms. Shannosha Gufta Khan. The application before the court, IA No. 6603/2026, sought two immediate reliefs: a direction to shift the victims to a super-speciality private hospital, and interim relief in terms of the Supreme Court's directions in Laxmi v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 129/2006), reported at (2014) 4 SCC 427, and Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India and Others (W.P. (Civil) No. 867/2013), reported at (2016) 3 SCC 571.
At an earlier hearing, the court had directed the State to take instructions and had asked the petitioner to get herself admitted at the Super Speciality Hospital, District Indore, by 23 June 2026. The State authorities were also directed to submit a report on whether the petitioner could be better treated at Arvindo Hospital, District Indore.
The Condition of the Government Burn Ward
The State placed a report dated 24 June 2026 before the court. A committee of doctors from different faculties opined that the petitioners had suffered serious injuries requiring long and specialised treatment, and that such treatment was available at the Super Speciality Hospital, District Indore.
Counsel for the petitioner took serious objection to that report. She produced recent photographs of the burn ward at the government hospital to show that it was not properly equipped or maintained. The photographs, which the court examined and also showed to State counsel, depicted fungal infection on the walls and rat cages kept at the site.
The court did not record a formal finding on the condition of the government hospital, expressly stating that it was not commenting on the affairs and conditions of the facility where the petitioners were being treated. The court's reasoning turned instead on the entitlement of acid attack survivors to treatment at private hospitals under the Supreme Court's guidelines.
Application of the Laxmi Guidelines
The court reproduced the relevant directions from Laxmi v. Union of India, which recorded decisions taken at a meeting convened on 14 March 2015. Those decisions required States and Union Territories to ensure that private hospitals do not refuse treatment to acid attack victims, and that full treatment — including medicines, food, bedding, and reconstructive surgeries — be provided free of cost. The directions also required that no hospital or clinic refuse treatment citing lack of specialised facilities, and that first aid be administered before transfer to a specialised facility.
The Laxmi directions further provided that the hospital where a victim is first treated must issue a certificate confirming the individual is an acid attack victim, and that compensation claims are to be taken up by the District Legal Services Authority, constituted as a criminal injury compensation board comprising the District Judge, Director General, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and Civil Surgeon or Chief Medical Officer.
The court found that the petitioners, being minors, required specialised treatment over a long period. The medical report confirmed that without proper treatment, the children faced the risk of sepsis, septic shock, and other clinical abnormalities. The petitioner's counsel had identified three private hospitals in Indore — Bombay Hospital, Apollo Hospital, and CHL Hospital — as suitable facilities.
The court held that, in light of the Laxmi dictum, the petitioners were entitled to treatment at the private hospital of their choice. The family had also placed on record their Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya ‘Niramayam’ Yojana card (Annexure P/14), which provides cashless treatment up to Rs. 5,00,000.
Directions Issued
The court disposed of IA No. 6603/2026 with four specific directions.
Bombay Hospital, Indore was directed to admit the petitioner forthwith and to start proper treatment the same day. The hospital was directed to maintain a separate account of expenditure incurred towards the girl's treatment and not to demand payment from the petitioner. Treatment costs were to be reimbursed from the petitioner's Ayushman card. Where the cost of any special surgery exceeded the insured amount, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Indore was directed to release payment immediately, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Barwani — respondent No. 3 — was separately directed to take appropriate steps for release of funds, keeping in view the Supreme Court's judgment in Laxmi v. Union of India passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 129/2016 dated 10 April 2015.
An attested copy of the order was directed to be handed over to the petitioner's counsel on the same day.
The court also issued notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven working days for the other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The connected petition, W.P. No. 22356/2026, filed on behalf of the six-year-old brother, was noted to be proceeding separately.
Outcome
IA No. 6603/2026 in WP No. 22348 of 2026 was disposed of on 24 June 2026 by Justice Deepak Khot. Bombay Hospital, Indore was directed to admit Shivanghi Chouhan immediately and provide all required treatment, with costs to be met through the Ayushman card and, for amounts exceeding the insured limit, through the District Legal Services Authority, Indore. The main writ petition remains pending.