Life and death: Why 'first response' in blasts is critical

By Gaurav Kumar Bansal Last fortnight, the Delhi High Court gave an order directing the government to bear the cost of artificial limbs for injured victims of the 7 September 2011 bomb blast at the court premises. That was further to an earlier order that raised the compensation for the relatives of those who lost their lives in the blast to Rs 10 lakh. The Delhi High Court orders were passed on a public interest litigation that I had filed to secure compensation for the dead and injured victims. The high court observed that it was the “duty of the Delhi Government to procure and provide artificial limbs” to the victims. Reiterating its previous order, it directed the government to bear the cost of treatment that victims were undergoing for injuries suffered in the blast. The September 2011 attack on the high court premises was the ninth terrorist attack in New Delhi since the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. In these string of attacks, more than 100 people died, and many more were wounded. In all these cases, the Centre and state administration began investigating the terrorist attacks in all earnestness, which is of course admirable. But they have shown not the faintest interest in the rehabilitation of the victims of the attacks, who too deserved attention on a priority basis. Nor have the governments at the Central or state level shown themselves to be committed to—or capable of—learning the right lessons from earlier failings of security and in terms of emergency responses so as to take effective steps to prevent future attacks. [caption id=“attachment_189628” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The inadequate response to the catastrophic incident points to the compelling need for a Special Emergency Plan to deal with similar situations. AFP”] [/caption] In the court blast, many people died on the spot, and many more were injured. The administration referred all the injured—some 110 of them—to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. That decision to refer all victims to just one hospital may have proved in hindsight to be disastrous. Given the rush of victims, the hospital’s emergency response was strained to the limits. As a result, many of the injured victims, who were in a very critical condition, could not even get first-aid treatment at the right time, and died. Any effort to learn from the mistakes of the past in situations such as this must address two critical questions: The first being was the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital equipped at all to deal with such an emergency? Also could some lives have been saved if some of the 110 injured persons in serious condition had been sent to other hospitals? The inadequate response to the catastrophic incident points to the compelling need for a Special Emergency Plan to deal with similar situations. The experience of other countries in this regard is illustrative. For instance, after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the US administration learnt from its failure and adopted a National Response Framework so as to coordinate its emergency response in the event of similar attacks. In both the US and in the UK, which too has witnessed terror attacks, there are independent divisions to look into various aspects of the emergency response. One division, for instance, is tasked with securing details of persons killed or injured in terror attacks so they or their families can receive the compensation due to them. For example, in the UK, the Crime Victims Compensation Programme is tasked with providing financial compensation to the victims of terrorist attacks. What’s striking about this program is that it provides not just for compensation but also covers it to include medical expenses, mental expenses, lost wages of disabled victims, rehabilitation of disabled victims and so on. New Delhi boasts of several world-class private hospitals, many of which enjoy government benefits or special provisions. Why, then, does the government not harness these resources in emergency situations so that people who are victims of terrorist attacks can avail of medical service that make the difference between life and death? Under a government scheme, our legislators qualify for medical services in these world-class hospitals – and enjoy the best medical facilities. Why cannot such services be made available at government expense to innocent victims of terrorist attacks? Is it not the government’s duty to do that? The government has to acknowledge that the treatment and rehabilitation of victims in such catastrophic incidents are just as important as forensic investigations. Not to provide such services only compounds the government’s failure in the first place to provide infallible security to its citizens. Gaurav Kumar Bansal is an advocate of the Delhi High Court, who filed a public interest petition seeking compensation for the victims of the September 2011 bomb blast at the court premises.