SC admits PIL against doctors146; strike

The Supreme Court will take up a petition against the doctors8217; strike during the anti-quota agitation and the removal of AIIMS director Dr Venugopal.

The Supreme Court will take up a petition against the doctors8217; strike during the anti-quota agitation and the removal of AIIMS director Dr Venugopal. The apex court has listed a public interest litigation PIL, filed by a social health activist organisation 8212; People for Better Treatment PBT 8212; to be heard on July 24.

The PIL seeks imposition of 8216;8216;punishment8217;8217; on doctors who struck work and points out that under the oath of Hippocrates that the doctors swear by, no medical practitioner could turn away an ailing man.

The petition filed by PBT president Dr Kunal Saha, an Indian born American and a leading AIDS specialist in the University of Ohio, US, also seeks punishment in the case of death of two patients who were denied emergency medical treatment at AIIMS during the strike period last month. The secretaries, Medical Council of India MCI, Union health ministry and the director of All India Medical Institute of Medical Sciences AIIMS have been arrayed as respondents.

It seeks the intervention of the apex court 8216;8216;to bring an end to the needless loss of lives and sufferings of patients due to the abrupt strike of the resident doctors at different hospitals in Delhi and other cities in India, including a shut down of many emergency departments, resulting in the denial of life-saving medical therapy for critically ill patients8217;8217;. It says under Section 20A read with Section 33m of the MCI Act and the Code of Ethics Regulations relating to the professional conduct, etiquette, and ethics for all medical practitioners in India, all doctors are required to follow the rules framed in the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002.

8216;8216;Any violation of the rules framed under the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002, is deemed as 8216;8216;professional misconduct8217;8217; and violation of these rules by any physician should render the doctor liable for disciplinary action including suspension/cancellation of his medical license,8217;8217; the PIL states, seeking to cancel the 8216;8216;licence to practise8217;8217; of doctors involved in the strike. It also seeks a direction to the respondents to 8216;8216;inform all registered medical practitioners that any disruption of the medical services in the Emergency ward is unlawful and that strict disciplinary action must be taken against any doctor refusing to provide emergency care to a patient or participating in any demonstration that disrupts the emergency services in a hospital or nursing home8217;8217;.

Although the OBC reservation case is pending adjudication, this is the first time that the apex court would take up a case relating to punishment of the doctors and suspension of their licences.