Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India, 1989

• A scooterist was severely injured after being struck by a speeding car.​
• A bystander transported the victim to the nearest hospital for urgent medical care.​
• The attending doctors refused to treat the victim, citing jurisdictional issues and advising transfer to a government hospital authorized for medico-legal cases, located approximately 20 kilometers away.​
• The delay in treatment resulted in the victim's death en route to the second hospital.​ However, the victim succumbed to his injuries and died on the way.
• Pt. Parmanand Katara, a human rights activist, filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.​
• The PIL was filed on the basis of a newspaper report titled ‘Law helps the injured to die’ published in Hindustan Times discussing the death of a scooterist who was knocked down by a speeding car and was refused treatment by the doctor on the ground that the particular hospital was not authorized to handle medico-legal cases. 
• He sought directives to ensure that every injured citizen receives immediate medical aid without procedural delays.​

1. Are doctors and hospitals, whether public or private, duty-bound to provide immediate medical assistance to accident victims without awaiting legal formalities?
2. Do any provisions in the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, or Motor Vehicles Act prevent medical professionals from offering prompt treatment to injured persons before the completion of police formalities?​

ARGUMENTS:-

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioner has prayed the directions be issued to the Union of India that every injured citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter 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.

Clause 12 and clause 13 of Code of Medical Ethics, 1970 represent the duty imposed on doctors and practitioners to serve and treat those injured to their best without rescuing themselves from performing their professional duty. A detailed reading of Clause 13 further connotes that it strictly barred willful negligence by the practitioners in order to establish the same degree of care and skill while dealing with emergency cases which clearly indicated that even the Medical Council itself has professional expectations from the practitioners.

Arguments of the respondent:

The contention of the respondents was on the same line as of the petitioner, however, with more input towards covering the legal aspects and measures incorporated by them.

It was contended that the hindrance in this process is said to be caused by statutory requirements to fulfill all the required legal formalities in the presence of a police officer before administering treatment to the victim. One of the respondents, the Indian Medical Council raised two relevant clauses of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970 that imposed duty and obligation upon the doctors and medical practitioners to render their professional services.

JUDGMENT :-

Based on the petition who were filled by the human activist the supreme court held that:

• Article 21 of the constitution of India enters the duty of on state to conserve life.
• There is no wink opinion on the conservation of human life is of dominant importance once the life is gone, it cannot be saved or restored over the ability or capacity of man. So, every medical professional or doctor private or public has the mandatory obligation to attend to patients in emergency conditions without thinking of any further process. The matter is related to a police case or any legal matter.
• The government of India published these guidelines as highly as possible to the adequate publicity to newspaper radio articles, high court, and session judges as much as other sources so that everyone knows their rights and is aware of their duties.
• The legal professional and judges and everyone concerned should also keep in mind that the person in the medical profession who attends to the patient in emergency cases should not be unnecessarily harassed until and unless it’s an emergency they don’t have any rights to waste their time and be dragged anytime to the police station for their investigation.
• The Hon’ble Court also said that the court should not routinely summon the medical professional until the testimony is very much necessary only in emergency cases they were called upon by the court.
• And also said that if there is any provision in law mentioned who stop medical professional to give treatment or attend patients in any emergency cases whether accident or something else then that law should definitely amend and make suitable laws so the medical professional may not be harassed.

Reinforcement of Right to Life:​ The judgment reinforced the expansive interpretation of the right to life under Article 21, highlighting the State's obligation to ensure timely medical intervention.​

Ethical Duty of Medical Professionals:​ It underscored the ethical responsibility of doctors to prioritize saving lives over procedural formalities, aligning with the Code of Medical Ethics.​

Impact on Emergency Medical Care:​ The ruling led to significant changes in hospital protocols, ensuring that accident victims receive immediate care without hesitation due to legal concerns.​

Protection Measures:​ By advocating for legal safeguards for Good Samaritans and medical practitioners, the judgment aimed to eliminate reluctance in providing emergency assistance.