Doctors practicing contemporary medicine voiced their strong opposition to a clause in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the proposed replacement for the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on July 1, World Doctors’ Day. The specific issue at hand is the replacement of Section 304 A of the IPC with Section 106 (1) of the BNS, specifically with regard to medical professionals’ criminal liability for careless acts.
Individuals who cause death by doing a careless or reckless conduct that does not constitute culpable homicide are subject to a maximum two-year prison sentence, a fine, or both under the current Section 304 A of the IPC. On the other hand, identical acts are subject to a stiffer penalty under Section 106 of the BNS, which mandates a fine in addition to a maximum five-year jail sentence. In addition, there is a maximum two-year jail sentence and an obligatory fine if the negligent act is carried out by a licensed medical professional during a medical operation.
In the BNS, “registered medical practitioner” is defined in accordance with the 2019 National Medical Commission Act. Any medical practitioner whose credentials are accepted under this Act and whose name is included in either a State or National medical registry is included.The Indian Medical Association (IMA), which emphasizes that physicians do not usually have criminal intent when treating patients, has expressed grave reservations about these reforms. IMA national president R.V. Ashokan and general secretary Anil Kumar J. Nayak outlined the possible drawbacks of the new regulations in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on June 29. They contended that doctors who behave carelessly or without criminal intent shouldn’t be prosecuted.
The Union Home Minister Amit Shah recognized in Parliament that deaths that occur under medical treatment shouldn’t be regarded as murder, and this is mentioned in the IMA’s letter. Section 26 of the BNS, which deals with actions taken in good faith for the benefit of the person but not with the intent to cause death, somewhat represents this viewpoint. According to the IMA, where there is a claim of medical malpractice, investigating officials shall use this clause.
The IMA further suggests that the matter be sent to an expert committee for a view in the very rare instances where acts could be deemed reckless. In certain states, this method is already in use; cases of this kind are reviewed by state-level appellate committees overseen by the Director of Health Services and district-level organizations headed by the district medical officer. The legal legitimacy of these methods has been demonstrated by High Courts upholding them.
According to the IMA, a comparable national framework would provide doctors with legal protection and allow them to make important judgments without constantly worrying about facing criminal charges. By doing this, the integrity of medical practice would be preserved and medical personnel would not be unfairly criminalized for unfavorable results that do not stem from willful or flagrant negligence.
Changes to the BNS that would acknowledge the special characteristics of medical practice are being pushed by the IMA and the larger medical community. They promote a reasonable strategy that upholds the rights of patients while simultaneously shielding medical professionals from baseless criminal accusations. In order to differentiate between true medical errors and criminal negligence, this would need putting in place precise guidelines and expert reviews, which would ultimately promote a more encouraging and equitable healthcare environment.
SOURCE:
THE HINDU
