MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND CONCURRING INDIAN LEGISLATIONS
Keywords:
accountability, professionals, executive, legislative, governance, health, democracy, fundamental rights, remedies, challengesAbstract
The principle that doctors and indeed all professionals should be accountable for their failure is entirely acceptable. However, the modes to test this accountability of the professionals are diverse and various methods have been tried over the period of time[1]. It is left to one’s imagination how a prehistoric tribal chief punished a shaman or medicine man or witch doctor or priest, physician who was perceived to have injured the chief’s family. In earlier time medical negligence was considered more as a crime rather than as a tort. The early tribal or communal law depended on local practice and custom for controlling the actions of the members of the medical profession.
The constitution guarantee the fundamental rights which are certain express commands to the executive and the legislative wings of the state not to do certain things in the governance of the country and in law-making. A healthy body is the very foundation for all human activities. In a welfare state, therefore creation and sustaining of conditions congenial to good health, i.e. right to health
Directive principles of state policy enumerated under part IV of the Indian Constitution nourish the roots of our democracy, provides strength and vigour to it. It attempt to make it a real participatory democracy which does not remain merely a political democracy but also becomes social and economic democracy with fundamental rights available to all irrespective of their power, position or wealth.
There are also various other legislations and important decisions by the apex court in regard with the matter of medical negligence trying to cope up with and block all the loop holes which are very much prevailing in the area.
The seminal aim of this paper is to analyse the various Indian legislations and other important decisions by the Indian courts in relation to the subject and to help the layman realise the available remedies that he can incur from the existing laws and to suggest some measures to overcome various challenges that the society faces in today’s era concerning this matter.
References
1. Mathiharan K, “State control of medical malpractice”, Law & Medicine , (An Annual Publication of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine, National Law School of India University, Bangalore) Vol 4, 1998, pp 88-92.
2. Paras Diwan & Virendra Kumar, Directive Principles of Jurisprudence (1982), p.29.
3. Supra n.75, p.72.
4. Vincent Panikur Langara v. Union of India & Others, AIR 1987 SC 994.
5. State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Baga , (1998) 4 SCC 117
6. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37.
7. Pt. Paramanad Katra v. union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 2039.
8. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
9. (1992) 1 SCC 461
10. Supra n.75, p.110.
11. Sec. 269 IPC
12. Sec. 274 IPC
13. Sec. 223 IPC.
14. Sec.325 IPC.
15. Sec 133, Cr.P.C., 1973.
16. B. M Gandhi, Law of Tort (1987), p.304
17. Sec 2, The Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916
18. Sec 6, The Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916
19. Sec3, The M.T.P Act, 1971
20. Sec 12 & 13, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
21. Sec 20A (2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
22. Sec 3, The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
23. Sec 2(2 ), The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
24. Sec 3(3 ), The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
25. Sec 9, The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
26. Sec 10, The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
27. Sec 13 A, The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
28. Sec 13A (8), The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 IJHML (2020) 39–51 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 51
29. Sec 17(2 ), The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
30. Regulation 56, Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000.
31. Regulation 2.3, The Medical Council (professional) conduct, etiquette & ethics regulations, 2002.
32. Sec.3, the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994.
33. Sec 3 (1), the pre-conception and pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of sex selection) Act, 1994.
34. Sec. 13(1), The Dentist Act, 1948.
35. Sec 4, The Dentist (Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1976
36. Sec 3, The Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973
37. Sachin Aggarwal alias Vicky v. Dr. Ashok Arora, (1993), 1CPJ 113.
38. Justice K Kannan, A textbook of Medical Jurisprudence & toxicology (2013), p.124. Cite this Article N. Krishna Kumar . Medical Negligence and Concurring Indian Legislations. Law. June 2020; 3(1): 39–51p.
