Right to immediate medical aid
Prabhat Mukherjee’s son Sumanta was an all-rounder. A topper at engineering college, he was also an adept singer and sportsman. But in 2001, Sumanta met with an accident when a bus knocked his bike down near Tiljala on the eastern metropolitan bypass in Kolkata. Although bystanders took him to a renowned hospital nearby, they were asked for Rs 15,000 as deposit, which none of them had. Inspite of having medical insurance, the doctors refused to treat him. By the time he was taken to the government hospital, he was declared dead. “It has ruined the family. After his death, my business packed up. His mother could not lead a normal life. Only his memory remains,” says a distraught Mr Mukherjee. If only the doctors had not refused treatment, Sumanta would have been alive today.
The Law Commission of India in its 201st report stated, that according to doctors, at least 50% of fatalities can be averted if road accident victims are admitted to a hospital within the first one hour of the accident. It is important that they are provided with basic first aid to enable them to survive till they reach the hospital.
But is it obligatory for a doctor or a hospital, both public and private, to provide immediate emergency medical aid to a victim of a road accident? Yes, it is obligatory, said the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment in 1989. (Paramanand Katara vs. Union of India: AIR 1989 SC 2039)
Paramanand Katara, a human rights activist, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on the basis of a newspaper report concerning the death of a scooterist who was knocked down by a speeding car. The injured person was taken to the nearest hospital but doctors refused to attend to him and directed that he be taken to another hospital located around 20 km away, one that was authorized to handle medico-legal cases. The injured person succumbed to his injuries before he could reach the hospital. Among other things, the petitioner “prayed that the court issue directions to the Union of India that every injured citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life”.
Based on the petition, the Supreme Court held that:
- There can be no second opinion that preservation of human life is of paramount importance. Once a life is lost, it cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man.
- Every doctor, whether at a government hospital or otherwise , has the professional obligation to extend his or her services with due expertise for protecting life.
- There is no legal impediment for a medical professional when he or she is called upon or requested to attend to an injured person needing his or her 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 citizen who happens to be connected with the matter or who happens to notice such an incident or a situation.
- Lawyers and judges and everyone concerned should also keep in mind that a man in the medical profession should not be unnecessarily harassed for purposes of interrogation or for any other formality and should not be dragged during investigations at the police station. This should be avoided as far as possible.