'Right to Health' and 'Emergency treatment first, pay later' has already been upheld by Hon. Supreme Court, thus does it require a sperate Law ? Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. ©

 'Right to Health' and 'Emergency treatment first, pay later'  has already been upheld by Hon. Supreme Court, thus does it require a sperate Law ? 

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. © 

The Right to health bill which was recently passed by the Rajasthan Assembly seeks to grant every resident of the state the right to emergency treatment and care "without prepayment" at any "public health institution, health care establishment and designated health care centres".

But even before this Act, Hon'ble supreme Court has ruled so in the case of Parmanand Katara V/s. Union of India - 1989 AIR 2039

It is said that one of the major reason for bringing aforesaid Bill is linked to increased no of Accidents in State of Rajasthan. 

As per the report published in 2004 by WHO, till 2020 road accident would be the major reason for deaths of people in India. Right to Immediate Medical Treatment in road accidents is the fundamental right of the victim. The Apex Court way back in the year 1989 in above referred judgment has framed the guidelines and in thereafter 2016 in the judgment of Save Life Foundation V/s. Union of India,  "Good Samaritan" guidelines also have been recently modified and accepted. Let's have a look in brief.

1. The Hospital and Doctors cannot refuse treatment to such victims for want of money or police complaint. It can be made available later, but human life is something most precious.

2. As per code of ethics, clause No.13, it is the "prerogative of Doctors" to decide to whom they should treat. But in emergency cases, such victims should be treated on priority basis, needless to say by giving all out efforts. if Doctors think that the Hospital is not equipped with proper equipments etc. to treat such patients, its the responsibility of such Doctors to refer such victim to higher center.

3. The Doctors may stop the treatment to such victim, provided prior written consent of such victim or near relative is obtained. It underlines the cardinal principle that "NO RECORD IS NO DEFENSE & POOR RECORD IS POOR DEFENSE"

SOLACE TO DOCTORS by APEX COURT :

4. The Hon Apex court in its 2016 judgment has also given solace to Doctors in such cases and it has been directed that Doctors can be called to Court as Witness only if required and when called for, then Doctors should be given preference over other witness, so that their precious time is saved. It is also seen that normally Courts do give preference to Doctors whenever they are called as Witness in any case, may be related to Accident or as a Witness over the WILL.

5. If we could make fear less atmosphere and when Doctors will gain confidence that they will not be trapped in police cases, , more and more Doctors will come forward to treat such accident victims.

6. These guidelines are also applicable in natural calamities like Flood, Earthquakes etc.

So, if these judgments and guidelines are there, whether again a Separate Act is required ?

Thanks and Regards,

Adv. Rohit Erande.
Pune. ©