SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra and G.L. Oza. JJ.
Pt. Parmanand Katara - Petitioner
versus
Union of India & ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 270 of 1988
Decided on 28-8-1989

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India 1950- Articles 21 and 32 - News item that a scootorist knocked down in a Motor accident, was taken by road passer to nearest hospital - Hospital refused to handle as it was a medico - legal case -- Sent to different hospital to 20 Kms. Distance - The victim died on his way to other hospital - Led to filing of writ petition for suitable directions to Union of India.

       Held: 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 on that position. A doctor at the 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/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. 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 classifications cannot also operate as fetters in the process of discharge of the obligation and irrespective of the fact whether

       under instructions or roles, 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 accordingly. (Para 8)

       (ii) Motor Accident - Victim taken to hospital -- Doctors not attending due to medico-legal nature of cage-- Apprehensions of harassment in Court for giving evidence-Solution pointed out.

       Observed: On behalf of the medical profession there is one more apprehension which sometimes prevents a medical professional inspite of his desire to help the person, as he apprehends that he will be a 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 examination which sometimes may even be humiliating for a man in the medical profession and in our opinion it is this apprehension which prevents a medical 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 therefore 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 police, 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~ 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 summond, attempt should be made to see that the man in this profession are not made to wait

       and waste tune 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 profession 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 unnecessary 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 profession 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. (para 17)

       Observed further: 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. (Para 18)