Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Beating Of Doctors And Other Hospital Staff By Attendants Of Patients Has Become A Very Regular Feature: MP HC Directs State Government To Amend Law

Posted in: medico Legal
Wed, Sep 22, 21, 20:12, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5291
doctors themselves as also the hospital staff are themselves not safe in our country and are abused, attacked and assaulted by some disgruntled attendants of patients

At the outset, let me begin with a candid confession: I have not seen God Shiv whom I worship with my own eyes whom I worship since my school days while awake but yes I have certainly always almost every day seen the best creation of God – Doctors and Other Hospital Staff right from my childhood days because whenever I had any problem of any kind pertaining to my physical well being, my parents always took me to doctor and other hospital staff who always took utmost care to ensure that I don't suffer from any problem any more and prescribed the best medical treatment for my physical problem and always by their words also boosted my morale.

The mere soothing words of doctors and the hospital staff prove to be the biggest medicine for patients in many cases. Yet to our utter dismay it is most unfortunate to note that doctors themselves as also the hospital staff are themselves not safe in our country and are abused, attacked and assaulted by some disgruntled attendants of patients on one pretext or the other! It is an unpalatable truth and sad commentary on the state of prevailing affairs in our country that three out of every four doctors admit to face some form of verbal or physical abuse and the condition of the other hospital staff is even much worse!

To put it differently, it is most distressing that people fail to realize that doctor can only perform operation but the survival of patient cannot be controlled wholly by a doctor! Also, the other hospital staff can just provide the needed help to doctor which is required ordinarily. Which doctor and other hospital staff will ever want that the patient whom he/she is treating should ever die? Is it fair that a doctor and other medical staff is beaten black and blue just because a patient fails to survive?

It is no ordinary matter that the Jabalpur Bench which is the principal Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has itself just recently on 20 September 2021 in a learned, laudable, latest and landmark judgment titled Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No. 20419/2013 has expressed its strong reservations against the increasing retrograde, regressive and reprehensible practice of beating, manhandling and attacking doctors and other paramedical staff in hospitals by the attendants of the patients. It must be apprised here that the Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition which had been registered on the basis of a letter dated November 18, 2013 written by Dr Sanjay Maheshwari, Head of MP Birla Hospital and Priyamyada Birla Cancer Research Institute, Satna (MP) and addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. It must also be mentioned here that the petitioner who is a surgeon by profession had been brutally beaten up in the course of his duty by the kin of an accident victim for his failure to save the victim's life.

First and foremost, the ball is set rolling in this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment by the Bench of principal Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla by putting forth in para 1 that:
This writ petition has been registered as Public Interest Litigation on the basis of a letter dated 18.11.2013 sent by Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari, Head of M.P. Birla Hospital & Priyamvada Birla Cancer Research Institute, Satna (M.P.), addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court.

To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the petitioner's contention then observes in para 2 that:
In the letter, the petitioner has contended that he is a Surgeon by profession for past 26 years and attached to M.P. Birla Hospital, Satna for last 21 years. In the midnight of 11.11.2013, an accident patient arrived in Emergency in their hospital. Out of five people, one of the victims died on the spot of the accident and the person driving the car had sustained serious injuries to his face, head, chest, fracture ribs, ruptured lung, multiple facial fractures, and skull base fracture injury etc. It is contended that even after their best efforts to save him, he succumbed to the injuries in 3.5 hours. Whereupon, the relatives of the deceased started agitating and in no time a large crowd gathered and started all kinds of violence against the staff in hospital and in residential campus as well. The petitioner and other paramedical staff were beaten, abused and threatened not only in their working place but also in their residential campuses and in some cases, in front of their family members too. Apart from this, the family members of the deceased patient also pressurised the police, as a result of which the police have lodged an FIR against the petitioner and other staff members of the hospital for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. Even though the hospital management lodged cross FIR and the petitioner offered to provide all the necessary evidences supporting their case such as citations, police diary, postmortem report, video footage of the entire incident and photos of the act but the petitioner failed to get justice. Not only the petitioner and other staff members of the hospital were mercilessly beaten but they had to remain confined in jail for quite some time.

To be sure, the Bench then further discloses in para 3 that:
The State has filed reply to the writ petition, inter-alia contending that on 12.11.2013 at 9 a.m., a written complaint was received from one Shri Subhash Sharma against the petitioner alleging that an accident took place wherein his relative, namely, Abhishek Sharma alias Anshu, had sustained injuries. He was admitted to Birla Hospital being referred from District Hospital, Satna. The petitioner had immediately examined him and assured that his condition is within control and suggested for Oxygen Cylinder to be provided to the patient but for about two hours, no Oxygen Cylinder was made available to the patient. After much delay, one Oxygen Cylinder was provided to the deceased but his condition still did not improve. When the victim was being shifted from Birla Hospital, it was discovered that Oxygen Cylinder was empty. The relatives of the deceased objected to such conduct of the hospital and this led to a dispute between the parties. It is contended that the statements of the witnesses, namely, Shri Jitendra Sharma, Shri Sudhir Sharma and Shri Prateek Dwivedi were recorded. The petitioner had applied for bail before the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, which was rejected by order dated 16.11.2013 but finally, the bail was granted to him. Learned Government Advocate further contended that a cross-FIR (Annexure R-1/2) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 294, 506, 427, 452 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the M.P. Chikitsa Evam Chikitsa Seva Se Sambandh Vyaktiyon Ki Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 2008 Adhiniyam) was also lodged at the instance of one Vinod Singh Baghel, Administrator of M.P. Birla Hospital, Satna against the relatives of the deceased, who had assaulted the doctors and other paramedical staff of M.P. Birla Hospital, Satna. This is an intra party dispute leading to lodgement of cross FIRs and therefore the present petition cannot be entertained as a public interest litigation.

Most significantly, what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment is that the Bench then waxes eloquent to hold sagaciously in para 4 that:
Even though the matter has been registered as a public interest litigation on the letter of the petitioner, who himself was allegedly beaten and was eventually lodged in jail and later, granted bail, thus showing his personal involvement, but, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that misbehaviour, abuse, manhandling and many times beating of the doctors and other paramedical staff in the hospitals by the attendants of the patients has these days rather become a very regular feature.

This tendency was witnessed even during the second wave of Covid-19. During that period, the Government had to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 by way of Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020 (No.34 of 2020) published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part-II dated 29.09.2020, wherein, the act of violence, was defined comprehensively as under:-

THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2020

No.34 of 2020

[28th September, 2020]

3. After section 1 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:-

'1A. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

 

  1. act of violence includes any of the following acts committed by any person against a healthcare service personnel serving during an epidemic, which causes or may cause:
    1. harassment impacting the living or working conditions of such healthcare service personnel and preventing him from discharging his duties;
    2. harm, injury, hurt, intimidation or danger to the life of such healthcare service personnel, either within the premises of a clinical establishment or otherwise;
    3. obstruction or hindrance to such healthcare service personnel in the discharge of his duties, either within the premises of a clinical establishment or otherwise; or
    4. loss or damage to any property or documents in the custody of, or in relation to, such healthcare service personnel;


Needless to say, it also cannot be glossed over that the Bench then hastens to add in para 5 that:
On the other hand, Section 3 of the 2008 Adhiniyam inter alia provides that Any act of assault, criminal force, intimidation and threat to medical and health service person during or incidental to discharge of his lawful duties pertinent to medical and health care delivery within medical and service institutions or in a mobile clinic or in an ambulance shall be prohibited. However, this Court can take judicial cognizance of the fact that despite the enactment of the 2008 Adhiniyam, referred to above, which under Section 4 thereof has made such an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees or both and under Section 5, has made the offence a cognizable and non-bailable offence, the 2008 Adhiniyam, as aforesaid, has failed to achieve the intended object.

This Court therefore directs the respondents-State Government to revisit the provisions of the 2008 Adhiniyam by inviting suggestions from all the stakeholders as to how it can be made more effective so as to provide deterrence to the perpetrators of such crime with the doctors and paramedical staff. The State Government, in doing so, may consider incorporating some parts of the amendments, introduced in the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, in the 2008 Adhiniyam to provide more teeth to this enactment and make it really effective with the purpose of containing recurrence of such unsavoury incidents with the doctors and paramedical staff whose services to the society deserve special recognition.

Finally, the Bench then holds in para 6 that:
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

All said and done, it must be underscored that the punishment for violence against doctors and other hospital staff has to be more strict so as to provide adequate deterrence to the perpetrators of such crime with the doctors and paramedical staff. There has to be zero tolerance for all such reprehensible crimes and no excuse of any kind should be acceptable in such cases of violence against doctors and other hospital staff! It is a matter of great solace to see that the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla have been honest and gracious enough to concede that legislation has failed to achieve its intended objective and thus commendably directed the State government to bring about appropriate amendments to curb such incidents of violence. The same must be done accordingly by the State government at the earliest to contain the growing incidents of violence against them and enforced in totality and with full swiftness to ensure that those who dare to indulge wantonly in violence against doctors and their other hospital staff are booked promptly and made to face the dire consequences! It certainly brooks no more delay anymore now!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, UP.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In 1929 Parliament perceived the need to qualify the child destruction. statute by a provision for preserving the life of the mother, but crassly failed to add a similar exception to the abortion section In 1861
When the Abortion Bill came before the House of Lords, much attention was given to this question.
Formerly it was thought that the vital point of time was fertilisation, the fusior of spermatozoon and ovum, but it is now realised
the paper intends to highlight the need for a concrete legal framework in reference to the recent developments to protect the rights of parties involved in the commercial surrogacy.
This article deals with the introduction of corona virus and it's legal aspects & some laws related to it in India.
incidents of manhandling of Covid patients/dead bodies. What is even more tragic to learn is that this is happening more with those patients who are not able to cough up huge astronomical sum of money as demanded by the hospitals where they are admitted
Ganta Jai Kumar v/s Telangana a medical emergency is not an excuse to trample on the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
dehumanizing treatment of the Covid-19 patients and dead bodies in the hospitals etc after watching it live in India TV news channel as also other news channels especially of LNJP hospital in Delhi which has shaken the whole country beyond belief.
Supreme Court went ahead to allow a woman bearing 25 weeks old twin pregnancy, to undergo procedure for foetal reduction on the grounds of serious foetal abnormalities
Own Motion vs State Of NCT Of Delhi after taking suo motu cognizance of the grievances faced by a citizen
Abdul Shoeb Shaikh v/s K.J. Somaiya Hospital that a person suffering from Covid-19 who belongs to the economically weaker section of the society cannot be expected to produce documentary proof before seeking admission in a hospital for free treatment
Ketan Tirodkar v/s Maharashtra dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging negligence in management of dead bodies of Covid-19 victims by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Karnajit De vs. Tripura Doctors are the first line defence of the country in the fight against the corona virus. It directed the Government to restore the confidence of the Doctors and para-medical staff and all concerned who are sacrificing their lives to fight against the pandemic.
Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research considerable unexplained delay on the part of drug authorities to test a sample can render any penalty under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, based upon the said analysis of the sample as void.
Bikash Duria vs State of Orissa Instances of drug abuse is required to be dealt with a strict hard on Crime attitude. It was made clear that the NDPS cases should always be dealt with stricter approach of No Tolerance
Own Motion Vs. UOI safety issues faced by the general public due to the non-availability of ventilators and oxygenated beds for Coronavirus patients with moderate and severe conditions in order to reduce the death rate in Nagpur.
Jeet Ram vs. Narcotics Control Bureau Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only in the case of personal search. This the Supreme Court has reiterated unambiguously while affirming the conviction of an accused who was a temple priest.
Hemant Kumar Vs Himachal Pradesh A medical officer who remains willfully absent from duty, is guilty of mis-conduct and punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be a harsh punishment.
RM Arun Swaminathan Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government if the autopsy reports are prepared in a shabby and unscientific manner and without actual performance of autopsies by doctors, it will lead to collapse of criminal justice delivery system in the country.
Tofan Singh vs Tamil Nadu by a 2:1 majority with Justice Indira Banerjee dissenting that officers of the Central and State agencies appointed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
VetIndia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Uttar Pradesh set aside an indefinite blacklisting order issued in the year 2009 against VetIndia Pharmaceuticals Limited.
We all keep hearing the old adages like Where woman is worshipped, God resides there and When you educate a man you educate an individual but when you educate a woman you educate the entire family so on
Dr AKB Sadbhavana Mission School Of Homeo Pharmacy vs The Secretary, Ministry Of AYUSH has minced no words to clarify that homeopathy can be used in preventing and mitigating Covid-19 as per AYUSH ministry guidelines. Thus some observations made by the Kerala High Court were modified on this score
To Curb The Increasing Menace Of Drug Abuse vs Kerala directions to control drug abuse among youngsters and students in educational institutions.
Gurdev Singh v/s Punjab quantity of narcotic substance is a relevant factor that can be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Patan Jamal Vali vs Andhra Pradesh taken the bold initiative to issue guidelines to make criminal justice system more disabled friendly.
Uttar Pradesh vs In Re: Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive upgrading the medical facilities in the state of Uttar Pradesh on a war-scale footing
Vivek Sheel Aggarwal vs UOI It is not for the Court to render advice much less issue directions to the Government on the line of treatment that is required to be followed for COVID
Tripura, Agartala v. UOI, wherein it has directed the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate steps for amending Section 27A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 without further delay.
Sonu Bairwa Vs State of MP & Ors black marketing of remdesivir injection has direct impact on public order, and the petitioner-accused if released, could indulge into same activity because the scarcity of remdesivir is still there.
Not permitting a rape victim, suffering from severe mental problems, to undergo Medical Termination of unwarranted pregnancy would be violative of her bodily integrity which would not only aggravate her mental trauma but would also have devastating effect on her overall health including on psychological and mental aspects.
Jose Luis Quintanilla Sacristan vs UP since a report of State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence (as per the provision of Section 293 CrPC), therefore, there is no requirement to call the Director of that laboratory to get the same proved.
Radhakrishna Pillai v. District Level Authorization Committee for transplantation of Human Organs, Ernakulam criminal antecedents of a person cannot be criteria when it comes to organ donation and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 do not make any such distinction against persons with criminal record.
Ashok Kumar vs Raj Gupta that forcing an unwilling party to undergo DNA test impinges on personal liberty and right to privacy.
Aryan Khan left his home in Mumbai's Bandra to attend a party on board Cordelia Cruises' Empress ship. A two-day 'musical voyage' had been organized by a Delhi-based events company.
Dr.P Basumani vs The Tamil Nadu Medical Council the Madras High Court quashed an order dated May 4, 2021 of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) suspending a gastroenterologist by observing that principles of natural justice were not given credence to.
All India Kamgar General Union vs Union of India Delhi High Court has issued detailed directives to Central Government Hospitals to ensure that no improper and corrupt practices are indulged in by the contractors in respect of engagement of contractual workmen.
Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada vs National Investigation Agency refused to quash an NIA case against Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada, who is allegedly a Dubai-based international drug smuggler, by taking into account the allegations against him of reviving terrorism in the State of Punjab
Mohd Zahid vs State through NCB discretion to direct subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of offences committed.
PD Gupta vs Delhi it expects a little more sensitivity from the Delhi Government when it is dealing with claims for reimbursement of medical expenses of senior citizens who are their own retired employees.
Sandeep Kumar v. Punjab Police on their knuckles for their callously casual approach towards their official duty even when the drug menace has become a deep-rooted in the state of Punjab.
Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri Vs Dr MA Methusethupathi in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction delivered as recently as on April 20, 2022 has laid down in no uncertain terms that merely because doctors could not save the patient
The National Medical Commission vs Pooja Thandu Naresh that the National Medical Commission is not bound to grant provisional registration to the student who has not completed the entire duration of the course from the Foreign Institute including the clinical training.
Aravinth RA vs Secretary To Government Of India Ministry Of Health upheld the validity of Regulations 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021, Schedule II 2(a) and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical Commission
State v. Sheikh Sehzad has released an accused charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act on interim bail while observing that every millisecond of unnecessary detention makes a substantial difference and tantamount to an unwarranted interference with the rights of the accused.
Mohan Singh vs UP allowed the conduct of DNA test in a murder trial as it noted that the same was in the interests of justice to unearth the truthfulness of the prosecution's case.
Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs Syed Basharat Saleem that before prosecuting medical professionals for the offence of criminal negligence, a Criminal Court should obtain opinion of the medical expert
Inayath Ali v/s Telangana allowing DNA testing to determine the paternity of two children to verify a claim made by their mother that she had been forced to cohabit and develop a physical relationship with her brother-in-law.
Davinder Singh Vs Punjab that the drug peddlers have successfully destroyed the social fabric of society and led youth to the wrongful path.
Top