Facts in Brief

The Petitioner was a “small human rights activist, fighting for good causes in the general public interest,” and filed an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. The case was filed on the basis of a report entitled “Law helps the injured to die,” published in the Hindustan Times. In the said publication, it was alleged that a scooterist had been knocked down by a speeding car. Seeing the profusely bleeding scooterist, a person who was on the road picked up the injured man and took him to the nearest hospital. The doctors refused to attend to the injured man and told the man that he should take the patient to a different, named hospital located some 20 kilometres away, authorised to handle medico-legal cases. The Samaritan carried the victim and lost no time in approaching the other hospital, but before he could reach it, the victim succumbed to his injuries.

Arguments

It was contended by the Union of India that the prevailing police rules and the Criminal Procedure Code necessitated the fulfilment of several legal formalities before a victim could be rendered medical aid. The rationale behind this complicated procedure was to keep all evidence intact. In case the formalities were not observed, the doctors were harassed by the police, and they were therefore reluctant to accept medico-legal cases.

The Petitioner argued that it was a part of professional ethics to start treating the patient as soon as he was brought before the doctor for medical attention, inasmuch as it was the paramount obligation of the doctor to save human life and bring the patient out of the risk zone at the earliest, with a view to preserving life. He also submitted that the formalities under the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other local laws, should not stand in the way of medical practitioners attending to an injured person; and that it should be the duty of a doctor in each and every casualty department of a hospital to attend to such a person first, and thereafter take care of the formalities under the Criminal Procedure Code. “The life of a person is far more important than the legal formalities.”

Judgment

The Court held that there can be no second opinion that the preservation of human life was of paramount importance. That is so on account of the fact that once life is lost, the status quo ante could not be restored, as resurrection was beyond the capacity of man. The patient — whether he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of 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.

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 a Government hospital, positioned to meet this State obligation, is therefore duty-bound to 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 or delay the discharge of the paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession. 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.

The Court directed that the decision shall be published in all journals reporting decisions of this Court, and that adequate publicity highlighting these aspects should be given by the national media, as also through Doordarshan and All India Radio.

The Court also directed persons in the medical profession that the apprehensions about being a witness, facing police interrogation, and spending a long time facing unnecessary cross-examination and humiliation — even if they have some foundation — should not prevent them from discharging their duty as medical professionals to save a human life. A direction was also issued to the police to take greater care and see to it that medical practitioners are not unnecessarily harassed in such cases.

The Court further held that when, on such occasions, a man of the medical profession is approached, and if he finds that whatever assistance he could give is not sufficient really to save the life of the person, but that some better assistance is necessarily available, it is also the duty of the man in the medical profession so approached to render all the help which he could, and also to see that the person reaches the proper expert as early as possible.

For the Common Man

This case has brought the “right to get medical care” within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution as a fundamental right. As a result, every person in India gets the right to approach any hospital and get medical aid, even when the legal formalities have not been complied with. Consequently, the number of deaths occurring due to the refusal of doctors to treat patients — where it is a case of an accident or any criminal case — will go down, and the doctor will be justified in being regarded as the saviour of human life.