Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 858 (JHR)

Court on its own motion v. Union of India

2012-06-26

ALOK SINGH

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Having read Hindustan Times, Times of India (English Edition), Dainik Bhaskar. (Hindi Edition) dated 26th June, 2012, it transpires that Doctors of various Government Hospitals. Dispensaries remained off their-duties on 25.06.2012 on the call of the Indian Medical Association. Several deaths are reported by Dainik Bhaskar daily in R.I.M.S. for want of proper treatment. Lots of patient remained in constant unbearable pain due to illness injuries and they have waited unsuccessfully for the Doctors to come and treat them. Number of surgeries/operations were postponed and were not performed because Doctors were on strike. It seems that Doctors, who remained on strike, failed to honour their oath to treat the ill to the best of their ability. In Hindustan Times English daily, it is reported that Doctors, who were on strike, were enjoying lavish lunch, while poor patients were waiting for treatment in the Hospital. 2. Chapter 2 of Regulation 2.1.1 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 reads as under : "2.1.1. Though a physician is not bound to treat each and every person asking his services, 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 discharges in the course of his professional duties. In his treatment, he should never 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. A physician advising a patient to seek service of another physician is acceptable however, in case of emergency a physician must treat the patient. No physician shall arbitrarily refuse treatment to a patient. However, for good reason, when a patient is suffering from an ailment which is not within the range of experience of the treating physician, the physician may refuse treatment and refer the patient to another physician. 3. Chapter 2 of Regulation 2.4 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 reads as under : "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. 3. Chapter 2 of Regulation 2.4 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 reads as under : "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. Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient, nor should he withdraw from the case without giving adequate notice to the patient and his family. Provisionally or fully registered medical practitioner shall not wilfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from necessary medical care." 4. Chapter 5 of Regulation 5.1 and Chapter 6 of Regulation 6.6 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations. 2002 reads as under : "5.1. Physicians as citizens, Physicians, as good citizens, possessed of special training should disseminate advice on public health issues. They should play their part in enforcing the laws of the community and in sustaining the institutions that advance the interests of humanity. They should particularly co-operate with the authorities in the administration of sanitary/public health laws and regulations. 6.6. Human Rights.-The physician shall not aid or abet torture nor shall he be a party to either infliction of mental or physical trauma or concealment of torture inflicted by some other person or agency in clear violation of human rights." 5. From the perusal of the Regulations as reproduced hereinabove. Doctors are duty bound to attend the patients who need immediate treatment. 6. Proper treatment and health care are one of the basic requirements of every human beings and is part of a fundamental rights too. 7. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, loss of valuable human lives of the citizen of this country due to inaction on the part of the Doctors by not treating them saying Doctors are on strike or off the duty, should not be tolerated. 8. Fourth Clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under ; "If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must. In all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." 9. In all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." 9. As per clause Fourth, if the person commits such act knowing well that such act imminently dangerous and. in all probability, shall cause death then such person is guilty of murder. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, since the Doctor is aware that if he does not provide treatment to the serious ill person which may cause to death, then such Doctor must be prosecuted. 10. Doctors. who fail to treat the patient saying that they are on strike or off the duty, in any case amounts to criminal negligence, justifying their prosecution for loss of human life. Not only this, if Doctors do not perform their duty to save the valuable human life. saying they are on strike, then such action must also be considered as anti-national activity. 11. This Court is constrained to take suo motu cognizance on the News Items published in the various News-Papers. 12. Let all the News Papers of today reporting Doctors on strike and death for want of treatment and pathetic condition of the patients be kept on the file as case record. Let it be registered as writ petition under the caption "Public Interest Litigation i.e. W.P. (P.I.L.). 13. Issue notice to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of India, New Delhi Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Principal Secretary. Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi (for short "RIMS") 14. Let it be registered as writ petition under the caption "Public Interest Litigation i.e. W.P. (P.I.L.). 13. Issue notice to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of India, New Delhi Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Principal Secretary. Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi (for short "RIMS") 14. Let all the respondents file their respective affidavits specifically containing: (1) How many patients have died yesterday (25.06.2012) in each and every Government Hospitals/ Dispensaries in the State of Jharkhand and, cause of their death; (ii) How many operations/surgeries are usually performed daily and how many operations/surgeries were postponed in the Government Hospitals due to Doctors strike; (iii) How many patients were attended and treated in each departments of Government Hospitals/Dispensaries on 25.06.2012; (iv) Names of the Doctors who were on duties in various departments of the Government Hospitals/Dispensaries and have not reported and went on strike or did not attend and treat the patients; (v) If the strike was in the prior knowledge of the Government, what action the Government has taken to prevent the doctors not to go on strike or what alternate arrangements were made by the Government to attend the patient; (vi) As to why Doctors, who have failed to attend patients be not prosecuted for the loss of human life by the willful negligence of the Doctor as well as for anti-national activity; (vii) As to why the licence to practice such Doctors should not be revoked. 15. Learned Advocate General, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 16. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India accepts notice on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of India, New Delhi. 17. Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, learned Senior Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the RIMS. 18. Let the case be listed before an appropriate Division Bench hearing W.P. (PIL) as per Rule 24 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 on 12.07.2012. 19. Let copy of this order be handed over to all the counsel for compliance. Order accordingly.