9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Obligation of medical practitioners to provide immediate medical aid. 2. Legal impediments and procedural formalities affecting medical aid. 3. Professional ethics and responsibilities of medical practitioners. 4. Publicity and awareness of the legal and ethical obligations of doctors. Summary: Obligation of Medical Practitioners to Provide Immediate Medical Aid: The petitioner, a human rights activist, filed an application u/s Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a directive that every injured citizen should receive immediate medical aid to preserve life, and that procedural criminal law should follow thereafter to avoid negligent death. The case highlighted an incident where a scooterist, after being knocked down, was denied immediate medical attention due to procedural formalities, leading to his death. Legal Impediments and Procedural Formalities Affecting Medical Aid: The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Medical Council of India, and Indian Medical Association were impleaded as respondents. The Medical Council of India emphasized that medical practitioners must attend to the sick and injured immediately, and procedural formalities should not hinder this duty. The affidavit from the Union of India confirmed that no provisions in the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, or Motor Vehicles Act prevent doctors from promptly attending to seriously injured persons before police formalities. Professional Ethics and Responsibilities of Medical Practitioners: The Medical Council of India referred to clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics, which mandate that physicians must respond to emergencies and not neglect patients. The Committee under the Director-General of Health Services decided that medical officers should start treatment immediately and inform the police concurrently, without waiting for police formalities. The Supreme Court reiterated that preservation of human life is paramount, and no law or state action can delay this obligation. Publicity and Awareness of the Legal and Ethical Obligations of Doctors: The Court directed that this decision be published in all journals reporting Supreme Court decisions and given wide publicity through national media, Doordarshan, and All India Radio. Copies of the judgment were to be forwarded to every High Court, medical college, and State Government to ensure that every practicing doctor is aware of their obligations. Additional Observations: The judgment highlighted the unfortunate state of affairs where high-level decisions do not reach the common man. It emphasized that the duty to save life is inherent in human instinct and professional ethics. The Court assured medical professionals that they should not fear legal harassment for providing immediate medical aid and urged the legal and police authorities to minimize unnecessary harassment of medical professionals. Conclusion: The Supreme Court ordered that every doctor within India must be aware of their obligation to provide immediate medical aid, irrespective of procedural formalities. The judgment is to be followed unless altered, and State Governments and Union Territories have the liberty to file representations within three months if they seek any modifications. The Court appreciated the petitioner's efforts and the cooperation of the Union of India, Medical Council of India, and Indian Medical Association. No order for costs was made.
|
