Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors

Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors significantly expanded the scope and jurisprudence of emergency medical care in India. It mandated that both public and private hospitals and doctors must provide immediate medical aid to victims of road accidents without any delays or excuses. This ruling is considered a significant achievement in public interest litigation (PIL) for ensuring prompt medical assistance.

Facts of Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors

The petitioner, a human rights activist, filed a writ petition based on a newspaper report about a scooterist who died after being knocked down by a speeding car. The report stated that the injured person was taken to the nearest hospital, but the doctors there refused to attend to him, directing that he be taken to another hospital authorised to handle medico-legal cases, which was 20 kilometers away. The scooterist died en route to the other hospital.

Provisions

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
• Clause 12 and Clause 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970

Issue Raised in Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors

The primary issue in Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors was whether a person could receive treatment from hospital authorities in accident cases without having to complete several legal formalities before receiving medical aid.

Petitioner’s Contention

The petitioner in Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors sought directions from the Union of India to ensure that every injured citizen brought in for treatment receives immediate medical aid to preserve life. He argued that procedural criminal law should be secondary to providing medical assistance to avoid negligent deaths. He also called for appropriate compensation in cases of breach of this direction.

The petitioner cited Clauses 12 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970, which mandate doctors to treat injured persons to the best of their abilities without willful negligence. He pointed out that other legislations, such as the Cr.P.C., the Indian Penal Code or the Motor Vehicles Act, do not restrict providing medical treatment before completing formalities, emphasising that human life is more valuable than legal procedures.

Respondent’s Contention

The respondents agreed with the petitioner but emphasised covering the legal aspects and measures they incorporated. They argued that statutory requirements often cause delays in providing treatment as legal formalities need to be completed in the presence of a police officer before administering treatment to the victim. The Indian Medical Council highlighted relevant clauses of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970, which impose a duty and obligation on doctors to render professional services, especially in emergencies.

Clause 10 stated that a physician is not bound to treat every sick person but is obligated to respond in emergencies like road accidents. Clause 13 provided that a medical practitioner should not withdraw from treating or attending someone in emergencies and barred willful negligence.

Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors Judgement

The Supreme Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the State to preserve life. It emphasised that the preservation of human life is paramount and once a life is lost, it cannot be restored. The court stated that every doctor, whether in a government or private hospital, has a professional obligation to extend their services with due expertise to protect life.

There is no legal impediment preventing a medical professional from attending to an injured person needing immediate assistance. The court emphasised that the effort to save a person should be the top priority for medical professionals, police or any other citizen involved. Lawyers, judges and everyone concerned should ensure that medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or dragged into legal procedures during investigations.

The court ruled that the obligation to preserve life is total, absolute and paramount. Any laws or procedures that interfere with this obligation must give way. The court directed that the decision in this case be given adequate publicity through national media, Doordarshan, All India Radio, High Courts and Sessions Judges.

Conclusion

The judgment in the case of Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India & Ors reinforced the paramount importance of preserving human life and clarified the professional obligations of medical practitioners in emergency situations. It eliminated procedural hindrances that delayed medical treatment and ensured that immediate medical aid is provided to accident victims, thus strengthening the framework for emergency medical care in India.