If you try and don’t succeed, cheat. Repeat until caught. Then lie.

Here is the actual judgement which says that proper treatment should be given to the injured.

It is also mentioned in this website
http://www.chandigarhtrafficpolice.org/helpingvictims.php

PETITIONER:
PT. PARMANAND KATARA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/08/1989

BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:
1989 AIR 2039 1989 SCR (3) 997
1989 SCC (4) 286 JT 1989 (3) 496
1989 SCALE (2)380

ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21–Obligation on
the State to preserve life–Every doctor has professional
obligation to extend services to protect life–All Govern-
ment hospitals/Medical institutions to pro vide immediate
medical aid in all cases.
Indian Medical Council Act, 1860: Section 33–Indian
Medical Council/Code of Medical Ethics–Clauses 10 and
13–Obligation to sick–Patient not to be neglected–Court
emphasized necessity to provide immediate medical aid.
Practice and Procedure: Medical professional–Law courts
will not summon unless evidence is necessary–Should not be
made to wait and waste time unnecessarily.

HEADNOTE:
The petitioner, who claims himself to be a human right
activist, filed this writ petition in public interest on the
basis of a newspaper report concerning the death of a scoot-
erist who was knocked down by a speeding car. The report
further states that the injured person was taken to the
nearest hospital but the doctors there refused to attend on
him; that they told that he be taken to another hospital,
located some 20 kilometers away, which was authorised to
handle medico-legal cases; and that the victim succumbed to
his injuries before he could be taken to the other hospital.
The petitioner has prayed the directions be issued to the
Union of India that every injured citizen brought for treat-
ment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve
life and thereafter the procedural criminal law should be
allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death, and in
the event of breach of such direction, apart from any action
that may be taken for negligence, appropriate compensation
should be admissible.
The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of
the Union of India, the Medical Council of India, and the
Indian Medical Association were later impleaded as respond-
ents.
Documents relating to the steps taken from time to time in
this
998
regard were produced. by the respondents. Reference was made
to the Code of Medical Ethics drawn up by the Medical Coun-
cil of India, wherein the need to attend to the
injured/serious persons immediately without waiting for the
police report or completion of police formalities was recog-
nised and the Government of India was requested to take
necessary and immediate steps to amend various provisions of
law which come in the way of government doctors as well as
other doctors in private hospitals or public hospitals in
this regard. The proceedings of the meeting held on
29.5.1986 in which the Director General of Health Services
acted as Chairman were also referred to. This Committee had
formulated some guidelines. On behalf of the Union of India
it was stated that there was no provision in the Indian
Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, or the Motor Vehicles
Act, etc. which prevented doctors from promptly attending
seriously injured persons and accident cases before the
arrival of police.
Disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court,
HELD: (1) Article 21 of the Constitution casts the
obligation on the State to preserve life. [1005G]
(2) There can be no second opinion that preservation of
human life is of paramount importance. That is so on account
of the fact that once life is lost, the status quo ante
cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of
man. [1005F]
(3) The patient whether he be an innocent person or a
criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society,
it is the obligation of those who are incharge of the health
of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may
be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do
not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal
punishment. [1005F]
(4) Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or
otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his
services with due expertise for protecting life. [1006A]
(5) No law or State action can intervene to avoid/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 statute
or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of
this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore,
give way. [1006B]
999
(6) The Court gave directions for giving adequate pub-
licity to the decision in this case by the national media,
the Doordarshan and the all India Radio, as well as through
the High Courts and the Sessions Judges. [1006E-F]
Per G.L. Oza, J. (concurring)
(1) The Code of Medical Ethics framed by the Medical
Council was approved on 23rd October, 1970. This only re-
veals an unfortunate state of affairs where the decisions
are taken at the highest level good intentioned and for
public good but unfortunately do not reach the common man
and it only remains a text good to read and attractive to
quote. [1007D-E]
(2) It is clear that there is no legal impediment for a
medical professional when he is called upon or requested to
attend to an injured person needing his medical assistance
immediately. There is also no doubt that the effort to save
the person should be the top priority not only of the medi-
cal 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. [1008F]
(3) The members of the legal profession, our law courts
and everyone concerned will 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 and it should be avoided as far as possible. [1009C]
(4) Law courts will not summon a medical professional to
give evidence unless the evidence is necessary and even if
he is summoned, attempt should be made to see that the men
in this profession are not made to wait and waste time
unnecessarily. [1009D]

JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 270
of 1988.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Pt. Parmanand Katara-in-person.
A.D. Singh, U.R. Lalit (N.P.). R.B. Misra. Ms. A. Subha-
shini, B.R. Agarwala, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Ms. Suman Rasto-
gi and Ms.
1000
Indu Malhotra (N.P.) for the Respondents.
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The petitioner who claims himself to
be a ’small human right activist and fighting for the good
causes for the general public interest’ filed this applica-
tion under Article 32 of the Constitution asking for a
direction to the Union of India that every injured citizen
brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medi-
cal aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural
criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid
negligent death and in the event of breach of such direc-
tion, apart from any action that may be taken tot negli-
gence, appropriate compensation should be admissible. He
appended to the writ petition a report entitled ‘Law helps
the injured to die’ published in the Hindustan Times. In the
said publication it was alleged that a scooterist was
knocked down by a speeding car. Seeing the profusely bleed-
ing scooterist, a person who was on the road picked up the
injured and took him to the nearest hospital. The doctors
refused to attend on the injured and told the man that he
should take the patient to a named different hospital locat-
ed some 20 kilometers away authorised to handle medico-legal
cases. The samaritan carried the victim, lost no time to
approach the other hospital but before he could reach, the
victim succumbed to his injuries.
The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of
the Union of India, the Medical Council of India and the
Indian Medical Association were later impleaded as respond-
ents and return to the rule has been made by each of them.
On behalf of the Union of India, the Under Secretary in the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare filed an affidavit
appending the proceedings of the meeting held on 29.5. 1986
in which the Director-General of Health Services acted as
Chairman. Along with the affidavit, decisions of papers
relating to the steps taken from time to time in matters
relating to matters relevant to the application but confined
to the Union Territory of Delhi were filed. A report in May,
1983, submitted by the Sub-Committee set up by the Home
Department of the Delhi Administration on Medico-Legal
Centers and Medico-Legal Services has also been produced.
The Secretary of the Medical Council of India in his affida-
vit referred to clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical
Ethics drawn up with the approval of the Central Government
under s. 33 of the Act by the Council, wherein it had been
said:
“10 . Obligations to the sick:
1001
Though a physician is not bound to
treat each and every one asking his services
except in emergencies for the sake of humanity
and the noble traditions of the profession, he
should not only be ever ready to respond to
the calls of the sick and the injured, but
should be mindful of the high character of his
mission and the responsibility he incurs in
the discharge of his ministrations, he should
never forget that the health and the lives of
those entrusted to his care depend on his
skill and attention. A physician should endea-
vour to add to the comfort of the sick by
making his visits at the hour indicated to the
patients.
13. The patient must not be neglected:
A physician is fee to choose whom he
will serve. He should, however, respond to any
request for his assistance in an emergency or
whenever temperate public opinion expects the
service. Once having undertaken a case, the
physician should not neglect the patient, nor
should he withdraw from the case without
giving notice to the patient, his relatives or
his responsible friends sufficiently long in
advance of his withdrawal to allow them to
secure another medical attendant. No provi-
sionally or fully registered medical practi-
tioner shall wilfully commit an act of negli-
gence that may deprive his patient or patients
from necessary medical care.”
The affidavit has further stated:
“The Medical Council of India therefore ex-
pects that all medical practitioners must
attend to sick and injured immediately and it
is the duty of the medical practitioners to
make immediate and timely medical care avail-
able to every injured person whether he is
injured in accident or otherwise. It is also
submitted that the formalities under the
Criminal Procedure Code or any other local
laws should not stand in the way of the medi-
cal practitioners attending an injured person.
It should be the duty of a doctor in each and
every casualty department of the hospital to
attend such 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. In
view of this, the deponent feels that it is in
1002
the interest of general human life and welfare
that the Government should immediately make
such provisions in law and amendments in the
existing laws, if required, so that immediate
medical relief and care to injured persons
and/or serious patients are available without
any delay and without waiting for legal for-
malities to be completed in the presence of
the police officers. The doctor attending such
patients should be indemnified under law from
any action by the Government/police authori-
ties/any person for not waiting for legal
formalities before giving relief as a doctor
would be doing his professional duty; for
which he has taken oath as medical practition-
er.
It is further submitted that it is
for the Government of India to take necessary
and immediate steps to amend various provi-
sions of law which come in the way of Govern-
ment Doctors as well as other doctors in
private hospitals or public hospitals to
attend the injured/serious persons immediately
without waiting for the police report or
completion of police formalities. They should
be free from fear that they would be unneces-
sarily harassed or prosecuted for doing his
duty without first complying with the police
formalities ………. It is further submit-
ted that a doctor should not feel himself
handicapped in extending immediate help in
such cases fearing that he would be harassed
by the Police or dragged to Court in such a
case. It is submitted that Evidence Act should
also be so amended as to provide that the
Doctor’s diary maintained in regular course by
him in respect of the accident cases would be
accepted by the courts in evidence without
insisting the doctors being present to prove
the same or subject himself to cross-examina-
tion/harassment for long period of time.”
The Indian Medical Association which is a society registered
under Act 21 of 1860 through its Secretary has stated in the
affidavit that the number of deaths occurring on account of
road accidents is on the increase due to lack of timely
medical attention. In the affidavit it has further stated:
“The second reason is on account of the pre-
vailing police rules and Criminal Procedure
Code, which necessitate the fulfilment of
several legal formalities before a victim can
be rendered medical aid. The rationale behind
this com-
1003
plicated procedure is to keep all evidence
intact. However, time given to the fulfilment
of these legal technicalities sometimes takes
away the life of a person seriously injured.
Members of public escorting the injured to the
nearest hospital are reluctant to disclose
their name or identity as he is detained for
eliciting information and may be required to
be called for evidence to Courts in future.
Similarly, the private practicing doctors are
harassed by the police and are, therefore,
reluctant to accept the roadside casualty.
It is submitted that human life is
more valuable and must be preserved at all
costs and that every member of the medical
profession, may, every human being, is under
an obligation to provide such aid to another
as may be necessary to help him survive from
near-fatal accidents.”
The Committee under the Chairmanship of
the Director-General of Health Services re-
ferred to above had taken the following deci-
sions:
“1. Whenever any medico-legal case attends the
hospital, the medical officer on duty should
inform the Duty Constable, name, age, sex of
the patient and place and time of occurrence
of the incident, and should start the required
treatment of the patient. It will be the duty
of the Constable on duty to inform the con-
cerned Police Station or higher police func-
tionaries for further action.
Full medical report should be pre-
pared and given to the Police, as soon as
examination and treatment of the patient is
over. The treatment of the patient would not
wait .for the arrival of the Police or com-
pleting the legal formalities.
2, Zonalisation as has been worked
out for the hospitals to deal with medico-
legal cases will only apply to those cases
brought by the Police. The medico-legal cases
coming to hospital of their own (even if the
incident has occurred in the zone of other
hospital) will not be denied the treatment by
the hospital where the case reports, nor the
case will be referred to other hospital be-
cause the incident has occurred in the area
which belongs to the zone of any other hospi-
tal. The same police formalities as given in
para 1 above will be followed in these cases.
1004
All Government Hospitals, Medical
Institutes should be asked to provide the
immediate medical aid to all the cases irre-
spective of the fact whether they are medico-
legal cases or otherwise. The practice of
certain Government institutions to refuse even
the primary medical aid to the patient and
referring them to other hospitals simply
because they are medico-legal cases is not
desirable. However, after providing the pri-
mary medical aid to the patient, patient can
be referred to the hospital if the expertise
facilities required for the treatment are not
available in that Institution.”
(underlining are ours)
To the said affidavit of the Union of India also, the
minutes of the 10th Meeting of the Standing Committee on
Forensic Medicine (a Committee set up by the Ministry of
Home Affairs of the Government of India) held on 27.4.1985
have been appended. These minutes show that the Committee
was a high-powered one consisting of the Director General,
the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Health of the Govern-
ment of India, a Professor from the All Indian Institute of
Medical Sciences, the Professor of Forensic Medicine from
Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, the Director &
Professor of Forensic Medicine, Bhopal, the Deputy Director,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta and certain
officers of the Ministry. The proceedings indicate that the
Director-Generals of Police, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh
were also members of the Committee. From the proceedings it
appears that the question of providing medico-legal facili-
ties, at the upgraded primary health centers throughout the
country was under consideration but the Committee was of the
opinion that time was not ripe to think of providing such
facilities at the upgraded primary health centers. One of
the documents which forms part of the Union of India’s
affidavit is the copy of a letter dated 9th of May, 1978
which indicates that a report on some aspects of Medico
Legal Practice in India had been prepared and a copy of such
report was furnished to the Health Secretaries of all the
States and Union Territories more than eleven years back.
From these documents appended to the affidavit of the
Union of India, it is clear that the matter has been engag-
ing the attention of the Central Government as also of the
Governments of the States and the Union Territories for over
a decade. No improvement of the situation,, however, is
perceptible and the problem which led to the filing of this
petition seems to exist in hospitals and private nursing
homes and clinics throughout the country.
1005
In course of the hearing, we directed the petitioner to
place on record for the consideration of the Court and the
respondents a draft guideline which could be prescribed to
ease the situation keeping the professional ethics in view.
When the same was filed, copies thereof were circulated to
the respondents and all parties have been heard on the basis
of the guidelines submitted on behalf of the petitioner.
The Medical Council of India has placed on record a
copy of the Code of Medical Ethics and counsel has made a
statement that there is no prohibition in law justifying the
attitude of the doctors as complained. On the other hand, he
stated that it is a part of the professional ethics to start
treating the patient as soon as he is brought before the
doctor for medical attention inasmuch as it is 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. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the
Union of India on 3rd August, 1989, it has been said:
“There are no provisions in the Indian Penal
Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Motor Vehicles
Act etc. which prevent Doctors from promptly
attending seriously injured persons and acci-
dent case before the arrival of Police and
their taking into cognisance of such cases,
preparation of F.I.R. and other formalities by
the Police. However, the deponent most humbly
submits that the respondent shall always abide
by the directions and guidelines given by the
Hon’ble Court in the present case.”
There can be no second opinion that preservation of
human life is of paramount importance. That is so on account
of the fact that once life is lost, the status quo ante
cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of
man. The patient whether he be an innocent person or be a
criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society,
it is the obligation of those who are in-charge of the
health of the community to preserve life so that the inno-
cent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social
laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to
legal punishment.
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 reiter-
ated with gradually increasing emphasis that position. A
doctor at the Government hospital positioned to meet this
State obligation is, therefore, duty-bound to
1006
extend medical assistance for preserving life. Every doctor
whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the pro-
fessional obligation to extend his services with due exper-
tise for protecting life. No law or State action can inter-
vene to avoid/delay the discharge of the paramount obliga-
tion cast upon members of the medical profession. The obli-
gation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of proce-
dure whether in statutes or otherwise which would interfere
with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained
and must, therefore, give way. On this basis, we have not
issued notices to the States and Union Territories for
affording them an opportunity of being heard before we
accepted the statement made in the affidavit of the Union of
India that there is no impediment in the law. The matter is
extremely urgent and in our view, brooks no delay to remind
every doctor of his total obligation and assure him of the
position that he does not contravene the law of the land by
proceeding to treat the injured victim on his appearance
before him either by himself or being carried by others. We
must make it clear that zonal regulations and classifica-
tions cannot also operate as fetters in the process of
discharge of the obligation and irrespective of the fact
whether under instructions or rules, the victim has to be
sent elsewhere or how the police shall be contacted, the
guideline indicated in the 1985 decision of the Committee,
as extracted above, is to become operative. We order accord-
ingly.
We are of the view that every doctor wherever he be
within the territory of India should forthwith be aware of
this position and, therefore, we direct that this decision
of ours shall be published in all journals reporting deci-
sions of this Court and adequate publicity highlighting
these aspects should be given by the national media as also
through the Doordarshan and the All India Radio. The Regis-
try shall forward adequate number of copies of this judgment
to every High Court so that without delay the respective
High Courts can forward them to every Sessions Judge within
their respective jurisdictions and the Sessions Judges in
their turn shall give due publicity to the same within their
jurisdictions. The Medical Council of India shall forward
copies of this judgment to every medical college affiliated
to it. Copies of the judgment shall be forwarded to every
State Government with a direction that wide publicity should
be given about the relevant aspects so that every practicing
doctor would soon become aware of the position.
In case the State Governments and the Union Territories
which have not been heard file any representation against
the direction, they shall have liberty to appear before this
Court and ask for appropriate
1007
direction within three months from now. Applications filed
after that date shall not be entertained by the Registry of
this Court. Until altered, this judgment shall be followed.
Before we part with the case, we place on record our
appreciation of the services rendered by the petitioner by
inviting the attention of the Court to the problem raised in
this case. We must also place on record our appreciation of
the cooperation and understanding exhibited by the Union of
India in the relevant Ministry, the Medical Council of India
and the Indian Medical Association.
No order for costs.
OZA, J. I entirely agree with what has been observed by
my learned brother and also agree with the directions indi-
cated in the Order made by Hon’ble Shri Justice R.N. Misra
but I would like to add:
As has been quoted by my learned brother, a high power
committee by the Government of India was appointed at a high
level and this was long before and the proceedings of 29th
May, 1986 have been filed and have also been quoted. The
Medical Council of India alongwith their affidavit have
filed Code of Medical Ethics which everyone in the medical
profession is expected to follow but still the news item
which is the starting point of this petition is of 1988. The
Code of Medical Ethics flamed by the Medical Council was
approved on 23rd October, 1970. This only reveals an unfor-
tunate state of affairs where the decisions are taken at the
higher level good intentioned and for public good but unfor-
tunately do not reach the common man and it only remains a
text good to read and attractive to quote.
It could not be forgotten that seeing an injured man in
a miserable condition the human instinct of every citizen
moves him to rush for help and do all that can be done to
save the life. It could not be disputed that inspite of
development economical, political and cultural still citi-
zens are human beings and all the more when a man in such a
miserable state hanging between life and death reaches the
medical practitioner either in a hospital (run or managed by
the State) public authority or a private person or a medical
professional doing only private practice he is always called
upon to rush to help such an injured person and to do all
that is within his power to save life. So far as this duty
of a medical professional is concerned its duty coupled with
human instinct, it needs no decision nor any code of ethics
nor any rule or law. Still in the Code of Medical Ethics
framed by the Medical Council of India Item 13 specifically
provides for it. Item 13 reads as under:
1008
“13. The patient must not be neglected.
A physician is free to choose whom he
will serve. He should, however, respond to any
request for his assistance in an emergency or
whenever temperate public opinion expects the
service. Once having undertaken a case, the
physician should not neglect the patient, nor
should he withdraw from the case without
giving notice to the patient, his relatives or
his responsible friends sufficiently long in
advance of his withdrawal to allow them to
secure another medical attendant. No provi-
sionally or fully registered medical practi-
tioner shall wilfully commit an act of negli-
gence that may deprive his patient or patients
from necessary medical care.”
Medical profession is a very respectable profession.
Doctor is looked upon by common man as the only hope when a
person is hanging between life and death but they avoid
their duty to help a person when he is facing death when
they know that it is a medico-legal case. To know the re-
sponse of the medical profession the Medical Council of
India and also the All India Medical Association were no-
ticed and were requested to put up their cases.
Some apprehensions were expressed because of some misun-
derstanding about the law of procedure and the police regu-
lations and the priorities in such situations. On the basis
of the affidavit filed by the Union of India and considering
the matter it is clear that there is no legal impediment for
a medical professional when he is called upon or requested
to attend to an injured person needing his medical assist-
ance 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. But on
behalf of the medical profession there is one more apprehen-
sion which sometimes prevents a medical professional in
spite of his desire to help the person, as he apprehends
that he will be witness and may have to face the police
interrogation which sometimes may need going to the police
station repeatedly and waiting and also to be a witness in a
court of law where also he apprehends that he may have to go
on number of days and may have to wait for a long time and
may have to face sometimes long unnecessary cross-examina-
tion which sometimes may even be humiliating for a man in
the medical profession and in our opinion it is this appre-
hension which prevents a medi-
1009
cal professional who is not entrusted with the duty of
handling medico-legal cases to do the needful, he always
tries to avoid and even if approached directs the person
concerned to go to a State hospital and particularly to the
person who is in charge of the medico-legal cases. We there-
fore have no hesitation in assuring the persons in the
medical profession that these apprehensions, even if have
some foundation, should not prevent them from discharging
their duty as a medical professional to save a human life
and to do all that is necessary but at the same time. We
hope and trust that with this expectation from the members
of the medical profession, the policy, the members of the
legal profession, our law courts and everyone concerned will
also keep in mind that a man in the medical profession
should not be unnecessarily harassed for purposes of inter-
rogation or for any other formality and should not be
dragged during investigations at the police station and it
should be avoided as far as possible. We also hope and trust
that our law courts will not summon a medical professional
to give evidence unless the evidence is necessary and even
if he is summoned, attempt should be made to see that the
men in this profession are not made to wait and waste time
unnecessarily and it is known that our law courts always
have respect for the men in the medical profession and they
are called to give evidence when necessary and attempts are
made so that they may not have to wait for long. We have no
hesitation in saying that it is expected of the members of
the legal profession which is the other honourable profes-
sion to honour the persons in the medical profession and see
that they are not called to give evidence so long as it is
not necessary. It is also expected that where the facts are
so clear it is expected that necessary harassment of the
members of the medical profession either by way of requests
for adjournments or by cross examination should be avoided
so that the apprehension that the men in the medical profes-
sion have which prevents them from discharging their duty to
a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost, is
removed and a citizen needing the assistance of a man in the
medical profession receives it.
We would also like to mention that whenever 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 some
better assistance is necessary-it is also the duty of the
man in the medical profession so approached to render all
the help which he could and also see that the person reaches
the proper expert as early as possible.
R.S.S. Petition disposed of.
1010

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.