as India is a signatory to the same. 56. The Indian Supreme Court in the case of Pt. Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India and Others, (1989) 4 SCC 286 recognized the obligation of the Government to preserve life. In the said case a victim of a scooter accident was denied treatment as the hospital did not have the requisite arrangements for medico-legal cases. Failure to receive timely treatment eventually led to the victim's death. While interpreting the ambit of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held "Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. ......The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way." (emphasis supplied). 57. In the case of Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity and Others (supra), a member of the petitioner Mazdoor Samity suffered a brain injury after falling from a train and was denied treatment at several hospitals due to lack of expertise and lack of beds and was forced to seek treatment at a private hospital. The petition was filed for compensation of the expenses incurred. The Supreme Court observed that the obligation to provide medical care was an obligation of the welfare state and held "The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare State at the federal level as well as at the State level. In a welfare State the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare State. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centres which W.P.(C) 7279/2013 Page 29 of 41