PT. PARMANAND KATARA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 28-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PT. PARMANAND KATARA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
AUGUST 28, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA AN!' G.L. OZA, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21-0bligation on the State 
to preserve life-Every doctor has professional obligation to extend 
services to protect life-All Government hospitals/Medical institutions 
?'"/ to provide immediate medical aid in all cases. 
Indian Medical Council Act, 1860: Section 33-Indian Medical 
CounciU Code of Medical Ethics-Clauses JO and 13-0bligation to 
sick-Patient not to be neglected-Court emphasized necessity to pro-
vide immediate medical aid. 
A 
B 
c 
Practice and Procedure: Medical professional-Law courts will 
D 
not summon unless evidence is necessary-Should not be made to wait 
~-. 
and waste time unnecessarily. 
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 scooterist 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 Lnion of India that every injured citizen brought for treatment 
should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and there-
after 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 Cou'icil of Inrtia, and the Indian Medical Associa-
tion were later impleaded as respondents. 
E 
F 
G 
Documents relating to the steps taken from time to ti"'e in this 
H 
997 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
regard were produced by the respondents. Reference was made to the 
A. 1
A 
Code of Medical Ethics drawn up by the Medical Council of India, 
wherein the need to attend to the injured1serious persons immediately 
without waiting for the police report or completion of police formalities 
was recognised and the Government of India was requested to take 
,,~ 
necessary and immediate steps to amend various provisions of law " 
B 
which come in the way of government doctors as well as other doctors in 
I
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 
~ 
c 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, 
D 
HELD: (I) 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 
E 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. 
F 
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. [i006A] 
G 
(5) No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the dis-
charge 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, there-
H fore, give way. [i0
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.