The Delhi Medical Association (DMA) filed a motion seeking orders for improved security of physicians from assault, but the Supreme Court of India just rejected it. The court, which included Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Karol, and Sanjay Kumar, declared that the laws now in place are adequate to deal with such circumstances and counseled the DMA to contact the proper authorities in the event that certain violent incidents take place.
Judge Khanna noted during the hearing that there are existing rules in place that handle violence against doctors, noting hospital signs alerting patients to the seriousness of such acts. Senior counsel Vijay Hansaria on behalf of the DMA petitioned for orders to provide sufficient protection at hospitals in order to stop attacks on physicians and other healthcare professionals by patients’ families and other individuals. Hansaria promoted preventive actions, citing recurrent instances of violence against medical professionals.
Justice Khanna did point out that the majority of hospitals already have security measures in place, such as police officers, and that the court cannot impose new laws. Hansaria retorted that inadequate security exists in many hospitals, particularly in rural locations. The bench emphasized that law enforcement is the primary concern, while acknowledging that individuals who conduct violent crimes may face legal consequences under the Indian Penal Code.
In the end, the petition was denied by the court. It implied that the DMA could take certain cases to court and pursue them that way. The bench also cited a September 5, 2022, hearing in which it was decided that private hospitals should arrange their own protection since the government could not be expected to provide security for them. On the other hand, government hospitals do have organized protection.
Advocate Sneha Kalita also petitioned for the creation of a distress fund to recompense medical staff members or their families in the event of assault. The request brought attention to an increase in violent crimes, verbal harassment, and severe incidents—such as public lynchings—that result in the deaths of medical professionals. In order to combat violence against healthcare professionals, it advocated for comprehensive central legislation that would incorporate compensating, punitive, and preventive measures.
The court’s decision to reject the petition reaffirms its belief that the rules now in place are sufficient and highlights the need of individual hospitals, especially private ones, to maintain their security protocols. The ruling is in line with a more general belief that, although violence against physicians is a serious problem, the best way to address it is to effectively enforce current laws rather than passing new legislation at the behest of the courts.
SOURCE:
MEDICAL DIALOGUES
