Supreme Court of India
PT. PARMANAND KATARAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 1989 INSC 256
- Decided
- 28 August 1989
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
Under Article 21, the State must ensure immediate medical assistance to all injured persons and no law may impede doctors from discharging this paramount duty, warranting a direction to the Union to implement such guidelines.
Summary
The petitioner, a human‑rights activist, filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a direction that every injured person brought to a hospital be given immediate medical aid, citing a newspaper report of a death where doctors refused treatment pending police formalities. The Union of India, the Medical Council of India and the Indian Medical Association were impleaded, and the respondents submitted affidavits showing no statutory bar to emergency treatment. The Court examined Article 21 of the Constitution, the Code of Medical Ethics under the Indian Medical Council Act, and the absence of any provision in the IPC, CrPC or Motor Vehicles Act that would prevent doctors from treating victims before police procedures. It held that preservation of life is a paramount State obligation and that doctors have a professional and constitutional duty to provide immediate care, which cannot be overridden by procedural laws. Accordingly, the Court issued detailed directions for nationwide publicity and implementation of guidelines ensuring prompt emergency medical assistance, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether Article 21 imposes a duty on the State to ensure immediate medical aid to injured persons.
- Whether any provision of the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code or Motor Vehicles Act bars doctors from treating emergency victims before police formalities.
- Whether the Code of Medical Ethics under the Indian Medical Council Act creates a legally enforceable obligation on doctors to provide emergency care.
- Whether the Supreme Court can issue directions under Article 32 compelling the Union to prescribe guidelines for prompt medical assistance.
Legislation cited
Subjects
right to lifeArticle 21emergency medical caremedical ethicsmedico‑legal casespublic interest litigationdoctor's dutypolice procedural law
Judgment
PT. PARMANAND KATARA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
AUGUST 28, 1989
[RANGANATH MISRA AN!' G.L. OZA, JJ.J B
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21-0bligation on the State
to preserve life-Every doctor has professional obligation to extend
services to protect life-All Government hospitals/Medical institutions
?'"/ to provide immediate medical aid in all cases.
Indian Medical Council Act, 1860: Section 33-Indian Medical
c
CounciU Code of Medical Ethics-Clauses JO and 13-0bligation to
sick-Patient not to be neglected-Court emphasized necessity to pro-
vide immediate medical aid.
Practice and Procedure: Medical professional-Law courts will D
not summon unless evidence is necessary-Should not be made to wait
and waste time unnecessarily.
The petitioner, who claims himself to be a human right activist,
filed this writ petition in public interest on the basis of a newspaper
report concerning the death of a scooterist who was knocked down by a E
speeding car, The report further states that the injured person was
taken to the nearest hospital but the doctors there refused to attend on
him; that they told that he be taken to another hospital, located some 20
kilometers away, which was authorised to handle medico-legal cases;
and that the victim succumbed to his injuries before he could be taken
to the other hospital. The petitioner has prayed the directions be issued F
to the Lnion of India that every injured citizen brought for treatment
should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and there-
after the procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order
to avoid negligent death, and in the event of breach of such direction,
apart from any action that may be taken for negligence, appropriate
compensation should be admissible. G
~-.
The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of the Union
of India, the Medical Cou'icil of Inrtia, and the Indian Medical Associa-
tion were later impleaded as respondents.
Documents relating to the steps taken from time to ti"'e in this H
997
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
A.
A
regard were produced by the respondents. Reference was made to the
Code of Medical Ethics drawn up by the Medical Council of India, 1
wherein the need to attend to the injured1serious persons immediately
without waiting for the police report or completion of police formalities
was recognised and the Government of India was requested to take ,,~
necessary and immediate steps to amend various provisions of law
B which come in the way of government doctors as well as other doctors in "
private hospitals or public hospitals in this regard. The proceedings of
the meeting held on 29.5.1986 in which the Director General of Health I
Services acted as Chairman were also referred to. This Committee had
formulated some guidelines. On behalf of the Union of India it was
stated that there was no provision in the Indian Penal Code, Criminal ~
--
Procedure Code, or the Motor Vehicles Act, etc. which prevented
c doctors from promptly attending seriously injured persons and accident -~
cases before the arrival of police.
Disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court,
D HELD: (I) Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on
the State to preserve life. [1005G]
(2) There can be no second opinion that preservation of human
life is of paramount importance. That is so on account of the fact that >-
once life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is
E beyond the capacity of man. [1005F]
(3) The patient whether he be an innocent person or a criminal
,.
liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of
those who are incharge of the health of the community to preserve life
so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. ~
F Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to
legal punishment. [1005F]
(4) Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise
has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise
for protecting life. [i006A]
G
(5) No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the dis- ....
charge of the paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical
profession. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of
procedure whether in statute or otherwise which would interfere with
the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, there-
H fore, give way. [i006B]
•
PT. PARMANAND v. U.0.1. 999
! 6) The Court gave directions for giving adequate publicity to the
A
decision in this case by the national media, the Doordarshan and the all
India Radio, as well as through the High Courts and the Sessions
Judges. [I006E-F]
Per G.L. Oza, J. (concurring)
B
(1) The Code of Medical Ethics framed by the Medical Council
was approved on 23rd October, 1970. This only reveals an unfortunate
state of affairs where the decisions are taken at the highest level good
intentioned and for public good but unfortunately do not reach the
common man and it only remains a text good to read and attractive to
quote. l1007D-EJ
c
(2) It is clear that there is no legal impediment for a medical
professional when he is called upon or requested to attend to an injured
person needing his medical assistance immediately. There is also no
doubt that the effort to save the person should be the top priority not
only of the medical professional but even of the police or any other D
citizen who happens to be connected with the matter or who happens to
notice such an incident or a situation. l IOOSF]
(3) The members of the legal profession, our law courts and
everyone concerned will also keep in mind that a man in the medical
profession should not be unnecessarily harassed for purposes of interro- E
gation or for any other formality and should not be dragged during
investigations at the police station and it should be avoided as far as
possible. [1009CJ
(4) Law courts will not summon a medical professional to give
evidence unless the evidence is necessary and even if he is summoned, F
attempt should be made to see that the men in this profession are not
made to wait and waste time unnecessarily. [I009D]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
270 of 1988.
G
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Pt. Parmanand Katara-in-person.
A.D. Singh, U.R. Lalit (N.P.). R.B. Misra, Ms. A. Subhashini,
B .R. Agarwala, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Ms. Suman Rastogi and Ms. H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
Jndu Malhotra (N.P.) for the Respondenis. J..
A
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered
..
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The petitioner who claims himself to
be a 'small human right activist and fighting for the good causes for the
8 general public interest' filed this application under Article 32 of the r
Constitution asking for a direction to the Union of India that every i
injured citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given
medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural criminal law
should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death and in ......,,
the event of breach of such direction, apart from any action that may ,.-
c be taken for negligence, appropriate compensation should be admissi-
ble. He appended to the writ petition a report entitled .'Law helps the ~
injured to die' published in the Hindustan Times. In the said publica-
tion it was alleged that a scooterist was knocked down by a speeding
car. Seeing the profusely bleeding scooterist, a person who was on the
road picked up the injured and took him to the nearest hospital. The
D doctors refused to attend on the injured and told the man that he
should take the patient to a named different hospital located some 20
k;ilometers away authorised to handle medico-legal cases. The samari-
tan carried the victim, lost no time to approach the other hospital but
before he could reach, the victim succumbed to his injuries. t
E The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of the Un-
ion of India, the Medical Council of India and the Indian Medical
Association were later impleaded as respondents and return to the rule ~
has been made by each of them. On behalf of the Union of India, the
Under Secretary in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare filed an r
affidavit appending the proceedings of the meeting held on 29.5.1986
F in which the Director-General of Health Services acted as Chairman.
~
Along with the affidavit, decisions of papers relating to the steps taken
from time to time in matters relating to matters relevant to the appli-
cation but confined to the Union Territory of Delhi were filed. A
report in May, 1983, submitted by the Sub-Committee set up by the
Home Department of the Delhi Administration on Medico-Legal
G Centres and Medico-Legal Services has also been produced. The Sec-
retary of the Medical Council of India in his affidavit referred to
.-<.
clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics drawn up with the
approval of the Central Government under s. 33 of the Act by the
Council, wherein it had been said:
H "10. Obligations to the sick:
PT. PARMANAND'v. U.0.I. [MISRA, J.] 1001
Though a physician is not bound to treat each and
A
every one asking his services except in emergencies for the
sake of humanity and the noble traditions of the profes-
• sion, he should not only be ever ready to respond to the
calls of the sick and the injured, but should be mindful of
the high character of his mission and the responsibility he
incurs in the discharge of his ministrations, he should never B
forget that the health and the lives of those entrusted to his
care depend on his skill and attention. A physician should
endeavour to add to the comfort of the sick by making his
visits at the hour indicated to the patients.
13. The patient must not be neglected:
c
A physician is fee to choose whom he will serve. He
should, however, respond to any request for his assistance
in an emergency or whenever temperate public opinion
· expects the service. Once having undertaken a case, the
physician should not neglect the patient, nor should he D
withdraw from the case without giving notice to the
patient, his relatives or his responsible friends sufficiently
long in advance of his withdrawal to allow them to secure
another medical attendant. No provisionally or fully
registered medical practitioner shall wilfully commit an act
of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from E
necessary medical care."
The affidavit has further stated:
"The Medical Council of India therefore expects that all
medical practitioners must attend to sick and injured F
immediately and it is the duty of the medical practitioners
to make immediate and timely medical care available to
every injured person whether he is injured in accident or
otherwise. It is also submitted that the formalities under
the Criminal Procedure Code or any other local laws
should not stand in the way of the medical practitioners G
attending an injured person. It should be the duty of a
doctor in each and every casualty department of the hospi-
tal to attend such person first and thereafter take care of
the formalities under the Criminal Procedure Code. The
life of a person is farmore important than the legal
formalities. In view of this, the deponent feels that it is in H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
the interest of general human life and welfare that the
A Government should immediately make such provisions in
law and amendments in the existing laws, if required, so
that immediate medical relief and care to injured persons
and/or serious patients are available without any delay and
without waiting for legal formalities to be completed in the
B presence of the police officers. The doctor attending such f,:,,
patients should be indemnified under law from any action
by the Government/police authorities/any person for not
waiting for legal formalities before giving relief as a doctor
would be doing his professional duty; for which he has
taken oath as medical practitioner.
c It is further submitted that it is for the Government of '
India to take necessary and immediate steps to amend
various provisions of law which come in the way of Govern-
ment Doctors as well as other doctors in private hospitals
or public hospitals to attend the injured/serious persons
D immediately without waiting for the police report or com-
pletion of police formalities. They should be free from fear
that they would be unnecessarily harassed or prosecuted
for doing his duty without first complying with the police
formalities .......... It is further submitted that a doctor ."/
should not feel himself handicapped m extending
E immediate help in such cases fearing that he would be
harassed by the Police or dragged to Court in such a case. It
is submitted that Evidence Act should also be so amended
as to provide that the Doctor's diary maintained in regular
course by him in respect of the accident cases would be
accepted by the courts in evidence without insisting the ~·
F doctors being present to prove the same or subject himself
to cross-examination/harassment for long period of time."
The Indian Medical Association which is a society registered under
Act 21 of 1860 through its Secretary has stated in the affidavit that the
number of deaths occurring on account of road accidents is on the
G increase due to lack of timely medical attention. In the affidavit it has
further stated:
".The second reason is on account of the prevailing police
rules and Criminal Procedure Code, which necessitate the
fulfilment of several legal formalities before a victim can be
rendered medical aid. The rationale behind this com-
PT. PARMANAND v. U.0.i, [MISRA, J,] 1003
plicated procedure is to keep all evidence intact However,
A
·time given to th°b fulfilment of these legal.,technicalifies
sometimes takes away the life of a person seriously injured:
• Members of public escorting the injured to. the nearest
hospital are reluctant to disclose their name or identity as
he is detained for eliciting information and niay be required
--{ to be called for evidence to Courts in future. Similarly, the B
private practising doctors are harassed by the police and
• are, therefore, reluctant to accept the roadside casualty .
t--·• It is submitted that human life is more valuable and
-r-- must be preserved at all costs and that every member of.the
medical profession, may, every human being, is under an
., ~ obligation to provide such aid to another as may be neces-
c
sary to help him survive from near-fatal accidents.,,.
The Committee under :he Chairmanship of the Director-General
of Health Services referred to above had taken the following decisions:
D
"'l .. Whenever any medico-legal case attends the hospital,
the medical officer on duty should inform the Duty Const-
able, name, age, sex of the patient and place and time of
occurrence of the incident, and should start the required
treatment pf the patient. It will be the duty of the Constable
on duty to inform the concerned Police Station or higher E
police functionaries for further action.
Full medical report should be prepared and given to
the Police, as soon as examination and treatment of the
patient is over. The treatment of the patient would.·not wait
for the arrival of the Police or completing the legal for- F
malities. '
2: Zonalisation as has been worked out for the hospi-
tals to deal with medico-legal cases will only apply to those
cases brought by the Police. The medico-legal cases coming
to hospital of their own (even if the incident has occurred in G
the zone of other hospital) will not be denied the treatment
by the hospital where the case reports, nor the case will be
referred to other hospital because the incident has occurred
in the area which belongs to the zone of any other hospital.
The same police formalities as given in para 1 above will be
followed in these cases. H ~
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
All Government Hospitals, Medical Institutes should
A
be asked to provide the immediate medical aid to all the
cases irrespective of the fact whether they are medico-legal
cases or otherwise. The practice of certain Government
institutions to refuse even the primary medical aid to the
patient and referring them to other hospitals simply
B because they are medico-legal cases is not desirable. How-
ever, after providing the primary medical aid to the
patient, patient can be referred to the hospital if the
expertise facilities required for the treatment are not avail-
able in that Institution."
(underlining are ours)
c To the said affidavit of the Union of India also, the minutes of the 10th
Meeting of the Standing Committee on Forensic Medicine (a Commit-
tee set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of
India) held on 27.4.1985 have been appended. These minutes show
that the Committee was a high-powered one consisting of the Director-
D General, the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Health of the Govern-
ment of India, a Professor from the All Indian Institute of Medical
Sciences, the Professor of Forensic Medicine from Maulana Azad
Medical College, New Delhi, the Director & Professor of Forensic
Medicine, Bhopal, the Deputy Director, Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, Calcutta and certain officers of the Ministry. The pro-
E ceedings indicate that the Director-Generals of Police, Tamil Nadu
and Uttar Pradesh were also members of the Committee. From the
>
proceedings it appears that the question of providing medico-legal
facilities, at the upgraded primary health centres throughout the
country was under consideration but the Committee was of the opinion
that time was not ripe to think of providing such facilities at the
F upgraded primary health centres. One of the documents which forms
part of the Union of India's affidavit is the copy of a letter dated 9th of
May, 1978 which indicates that a report on some aspects of Medico-
Legal Practice in India had been prepared and a copy of such report
was furnished to the Health Secretaries of all the States and Union
Territories more than eleven years back.
G
From these documents appended to the affidavit of the Union of ,.\,
India, it is clear that the matter has been engaging the attention of the
Central Government as also of the Governments of the States and the
Union Territories for over a decade. No improvement of the situation,
however, is perceptible and the problem which led to the filing of this
H petition seems to exist in hospitals and private nursing homes and
clinics throughout the country.
)l;:
., .
PT. PARMANAND v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.] 1005
.>. In course of the hearing, we directed the petitioner to place on
A
record for the consideraton of the· Court and the respondents a draft
guideline which could be prescribed to ease the situation keeping the
• professional ethics in view. When the same was filed, copies thereof
were circulated to the respondents and all parties have been heard on
--{ the basis of the guidelines submitted on behalf of the petitioner.
B
The Medical Council of India has placed on record a copy of the
Code of Medical Ethics and counsel has made a statement that there is
.•. no prohibition in law justifying the attitude of the doctors as com-
plained. On the other hand, he stated that it is a part of the profes-
·r:- sional ethics to start treating the patient as soon as he is brought before
the doctor for medical attention inasmuch as it is the paramount obli-
~ gation of the doctor to save human life and bring the patient out of the
c
risk zone at the earliest with a view to preserving life. In the affidavit
filed on behalf of the Union of India on 3rd August, 1989, it has been
said:
"There are no provisions in the Indian Penal Code, Crimi- D
nal Procedure Code, Motor Vehicles Act etc. which pre-
vent Doctors from promptly attending seriously injured
persons and accident case before the arrival of Police and
-\ their taking into cognisance of such cases, preparation of
F.l.R. and other formalities by the Police. However, the
-
deponent most humbly submits that the respondent shall E
always abide by the directions and guidelines gi.ven by the
Hon'ble Court in the present case."
There can be no second opinion that preservation of human life
·1 is of paramount importance. That is so on account of the fact that once
life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is F
beyond the capacity of man, The patient whether he be an innocent
person or be a c.riminal liable to punishment under the laws of the
society, it is the obligation of those who are in-charge of the health of
the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected
and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death
by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment. G
A
Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to
preserve life. The provision as explained by this Court in scores of
decisions has emphasised and reiterated with gradually increasing
emphasis that position. A doctor at the Government hospital
positioned to meet this State obligation is, therefore, duty-bound to H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
<\
extend medical assistance for preserving life. Every doctor whether at
a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to
extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. No law or
"'
State action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of the •
paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession.
The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure r
B whether in statutes or otherwise which would interfere with the dis-
charge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give
way. On this basis, we have not issued notices to the States and Union
Territories for affording them an opportunity of being heard before we
accepted the statement made in the affidavit of the Union of India that
·--
,~
there is no impediment in the law. The matter is extremely urgent and "'·
in our view, brooks no delay to remind every doctor of his total obliga-
c tion and assure him of the position that he does not contravene the law
.+
of the land by proceeding to treat the injured victim on his appearance /
before him either by himself or being carried by others. We must make
it clear that zonal regulations and classifications cannot also operate as
fetters in the process of discharge of the obligation and irrespective of
D the fact whether under instructions or rules, the victim has to be sent
elsewhere or how the police shall be contacted, the guideline indicated
in the 1985 decision of the Committee, as extracted above, is to
become operative. We order accordingly. '!-
We are of the view that every doctor wherever he be within the
E territory of India should forthwith be aware of this position and, there-
fore, we direct that this decision of ours shall be pubhshed in all
journals reporting decisions of this Court and adequcte poblicity high-
lighting these aspects should be given by the national media as also
through the Doordarshan and the All India Radio. The Registry shall
forward adequate number of copies of this judgment to every High
Court so that without delay the respective High Courts can forward
t
F
them to every Sessions Judge within their respective jurisdictions and
the Sessions Judges in their turn shall give due publicity to the same
within their jurisdictions. The Medical Council of India shall forward
copies of this judgment t_o every medical college affiliated to it. Copies
of the judgment shall be forwarded to every State Government with a
G direction that wide publicity should be given about the relevant aspects
so that every practising doctor would soon become aware of the A
position.
In case the State Governments and the Union Territor_i_es which
have not been heard file any representation against the direction, they
H shall have liberty to appear before this Court and ask for appropriate
PT. PARMANAND v. U.0.1. [OZA, J.]
)..
direction within three months from now. Applications filed after that A
date shall not be entertained by the Registry of this Court. Until
altered, this judgment shall be followed.
Before we part with the case, we place on record our apprecia-
tion of the services rendered by the petitioner by inviting the attention
of the Court to the problem raised in this case. We must also place on B
record out appreeiation of the cooperation and understanding
exhibited by the Union of India in the relevant Ministry, 'the Medical
Council of India and the Indian Medical Association.
No order for costs.
OZA; J. I entirely agree with what has been observed by my C
learned brother and also agree with the directions indicated in the
Order made by Hon'ble Shri Justice R.N. Misra but I would like to
add: · ·
As has been quoted by my learned brother, a high power com-
mittee by the Government of India was appointed at a high level and
D
this was long before and the proceedings of 29th May, 1986 have been
filed and have also been quoted. The Medical Council of Indiia along-
with their affidavit have filed Code of Medical Ethics which everyone
in the medical profession is expected to follow but still the news item
which is the starting point of this petition is of 1988. The Code of
Medical Ethics framed by the Medical Council was approved on 23rd
E
October, 1970. This only reveals an unfortunate state of affairs where
the decisions ate taken at the higher. level good intentioned and for
public good but unfortunately do not reach the common man and it
only remains a text good to read and attractive to quote.
1t could hot be fOrgottefi mat seeing an injured inan in a miser·
able condition the human ifistifict of every citizen ruoves him to rush F
for help and do all that can be done to save the life. lt oould not be
disputed that inspite of development economical, poiitical and cultural
still citizefis are human beings and all the more when a man in such a
miserable state hanging between life and death reaches the medical
pi:_actitioner either in a hospital (run or managed by the State) public
authority or a private person or a medical professional doing only G
private practice he is always called upon to rush to help such an injured
person and to do all that is within his power to save life. So far as this
duty of a medical professional is concerned its duty coupled with hu-
man instinct, it needs no decision nor any code of ethics nor any rule or
Jaw. Still in the Code of Medical Ethics framed bv the Medical Council
of India Item 13 specifically provides for it. ltem 13 reads as under: H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
A
"13. The patient must not be neglected.
A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He
should, however, respond to any request for his assistance
in an emergency or whenever temperate public opinion
expects the service. Once having undertaken a case, the
B physician should not neglect the patient, nor should he
withdraw from the case without giving notice to the
patient, his relatives or his responsible friends sufficiently
long in advance of his withdrawal to allow them to secure
another medical attendant. No provisionally or fully regis-
tered medical practitioner shall wilfully commit an act of
negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from
c necessary medical care."
Medical profession is a very respectable profession. Doctor is
looked upon by comman man as the only hope when a person is hang-
ing between life and death but they avoid their duty to help a person
D when he is facing death when they know that it is a medico-legal case.
To know the response of the medical profession the Medical Council
of India and also the All India Medical Association were noticed and
were requeste.d to put up their cases.
Some apprehensions were expressed because of some misunder-
E standing about the law of procedure and the police regulations and the
priorities in such situations. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the
Union of India and considering the matter it is clear that there is no
legal impediment for a medical professional when he is called upon or
requested to attend to an injured person needing his medical assis-
tance immediately. There is also no doubt that the effort to save the
F person should be the top priority not only of the medical professional
but even of the police or any other citizen who happens to_ be con-
nected with the matter or who happens to notice such an incident or a
situation. But on behalf of the medical profession there is one more
apprehension which sometimes prevents a medical professional in spite
of his desire to help the person, as he apprehends that he will be
G witness and may have to face the police interrogation which sometimes
may need going to the police station repeatedly and waiting and also to
be a witness in a court of law where also he apprehends that he may
have to go on number of days and may have to wait for a long time and
may have to face sometimes long unnecessary cross-examination which
sometimes may even be humiliating for a man in the medical profes-
H sion and in ~ur opinion it is this apprehension which prevents a medi-
PT. PARMANAND v. U.0.1. [OZA, J.] 1009
,1 cal professional who is not entrusted with the duty of handling
A
medico-legal cases to do the needful, he always tries to avoid and even
if approached directs the person concerned to go to a State hospital
and particularly to the person who is in charge of the medico-legal
cases. We therefore have no hesitation in assuring the persons in the
~ medical profession that these apprehensions, even if have some found-
ation, should not prevent them from discharing their duty as a medical B
professional to save a human life and to do all that is necessary but at
the same time. We hope and trust that with this expectation from the
. members of the medical profession, the policy, the members of the
·-,.. legal profession, our law courts and everyone concerned will also keep
in mind that a man in the medical profession should not be unnecessar-
ily harassed for purposes of interrogation or for any other formality
~ and should not be dragged during investigations at the police station
c
and it should be avoided as far as possible. We also hope and trust that
our law courts will not summon a medical professiopal to give evidence
' unless the evidence is necessary and even if he is summoned, attempt
should be made to see that the men in this _profession are not made to
wait and waste time unnecessarily and it is known that our law courts D
always have respect for the men in the medical profession and they are
called to give evidence when necessary and attempts are made so that
they may not have to wait for long. We have no hesitation in saying
-\ that ifis expected of the members of the legal profession which is the
other honourable profession to honour the persons in the medical
profession and see that they are not called to give evidence so long as it E
is not necessary. It is also expected that where the facts are so clear it is
expected that necessary harassment of the members of the medical
profession either by way of requests for adjournments or by cross
examination should be avoided so that the apprehension that the men
"
in the medical profession have which prevents them from discharging
their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost, is F
removed and a citizen needing the assistance of a man in the medical
profession receives it.
We would also like to mention that whenever on such occasions a
man of the medical profession is approach!'d and if he finds that what-
ever assistance he could give is not sufficient really to save the life of G
,J.. the person but some better assistance is necessary-it is also the duty of
the man in the medical profession so approached to render all the help
l which he .could and also see tiiat the person reaches the proper expert
as early as possible.
R.S.S. Petition disposed of. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "right to life"Sign in to search