At the outset, let me begin with a candid confession: I have not seen God Shiv whom I worship with my own eyes whom I worship since my school days while awake but yes I have certainly always almost every day seen the best creation of God – “Doctors and Other Hospital Staff” right from my childhood days because whenever I had any problem of any kind pertaining to my physical well being, my parents always took me to doctor and other hospital staff who always took utmost care to ensure that I don’t suffer from any problem any more and prescribed the best medical treatment for my physical problem and always by their words also boosted my morale. The mere soothing words of doctors and the hospital staff prove to be the biggest medicine for patients in many cases. Yet to our utter dismay it is most unfortunate to note that doctors themselves as also the hospital staff are themselves not safe in our country and are abused, attacked and assaulted by some disgruntled attendants of patients on one pretext or the other! It is an unpalatable truth and sad commentary on the state of prevailing affairs in our country that three out of every four doctors admit to face some form of verbal or physical abuse and the condition of the other hospital staff is even much worse!
To put it differently, it is most distressing that people fail to realize that doctor can only perform operation but the survival of patient cannot be controlled wholly by a doctor! Also, the other hospital staff can just provide the needed help to doctor which is required ordinarily. Which doctor and other hospital staff will ever want that the patient whom he/she is treating should ever die? Is it fair that a doctor and other medical staff is beaten black and blue just because a patient fails to survive?
It is no ordinary matter that the Jabalpur Bench which is the principal Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has itself just recently on 20 September 2021 in a learned, laudable, latest and landmark judgment titled Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No. 20419/2013 has expressed its strong reservations against the increasing retrograde, regressive and reprehensible practice of beating, manhandling and attacking doctors and other paramedical staff in hospitals by the attendants of the patients. It must be apprised here that the Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition which had been registered on the basis of a letter dated November 18, 2013 written by Dr Sanjay Maheshwari, Head of MP Birla Hospital and Priyamyada Birla Cancer Research Institute, Satna (MP) and addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. It must also be mentioned here that the petitioner who is a surgeon by profession had been brutally beaten up in the course of his duty by the kin of an accident victim for his failure to save the victim’s life.
First and foremost, the ball is set rolling in this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment by the Bench of principal Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla by putting forth in para 1 that, “This writ petition has been registered as Public Interest Litigation on the basis of a letter dated 18.11.2013 sent by Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari, Head of M.P. Birla Hospital & Priyamvada Birla Cancer Research Institute, Satna (M.P.), addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the petitioner’s contention then observes in para 2 that, “In the letter, the petitioner has contended that he is a Surgeon by profession for past 26 years and attached to M.P. Birla Hospital, Satna for last 21 years. In the midnight of 11.11.2013, an accident patient arrived in Emergency in their hospital. Out of five people, one of the victims died on the spot of the accident and the person driving the car had sustained serious injuries to his face, head, chest, fracture ribs, ruptured lung, multiple facial fractures, and skull base fracture injury etc. It is contended that even after their best efforts to save him, he succumbed to the injuries in 3.5 hours. Whereupon, the relatives of the deceased started agitating and in no time a large crowd gathered and started all kinds of violence against the staff in hospital and in residential campus as well. The petitioner and other paramedical staff were beaten, abused and threatened not only in their working place but also in their residential campuses and in some cases, in front of their family members too. Apart from this, the family members of the deceased patient also pressurised the police, as a result of which the police have lodged an FIR against the petitioner and other staff members of the hospital for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. Even though the hospital management lodged cross FIR and the petitioner offered to provide all the necessary evidences supporting their case such as citations, police diary, postmortem report, video footage of the entire incident and photos of the act but the petitioner failed to get justice. Not only the petitioner and other staff members of the hospital were mercilessly beaten but they had to remain confined in jail for quite some time.”
To be sure, the Bench then further discloses in para 3 that, “The State has filed reply to the writ petition, inter-alia contending that on 12.11.2013 at 9 a.m., a written complaint was received from one Shri Subhash Sharma against the petitioner alleging that an accident took place wherein his relative, namely, Abhishek Sharma alias Anshu, had sustained injuries. He was admitted to Birla Hospital being referred from District Hospital, Satna. The petitioner had immediately examined him and assured that his condition is within control and suggested for Oxygen Cylinder to be provided to the patient but for about two hours, no Oxygen Cylinder was made available to the patient. After much delay, one Oxygen Cylinder was provided to the deceased but his condition still did not improve. When the victim was being shifted from Birla Hospital, it was discovered that Oxygen Cylinder was empty. The relatives of the deceased objected to such conduct of the hospital and this led to a dispute between the parties. It is contended that the statements of the witnesses, namely, Shri Jitendra Sharma, Shri Sudhir Sharma and Shri Prateek Dwivedi were recorded. The petitioner had applied for bail before the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, which was rejected by order dated 16.11.2013 but finally, the bail was granted to him. Learned Government Advocate further contended that a cross-FIR (Annexure R-1/2) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 294, 506, 427, 452 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the M.P. Chikitsa Evam Chikitsa Seva Se Sambandh Vyaktiyon Ki Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “2008 Adhiniyam”) was also lodged at the instance of one Vinod Singh Baghel, Administrator of M.P. Birla Hospital, Satna against the relatives of the deceased, who had assaulted the doctors and other paramedical staff of M.P. Birla Hospital, Satna. This is an intra party dispute leading to lodgement of cross FIRs and therefore the present petition cannot be entertained as a public interest litigation.”
Most significantly, what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment is that the Bench then waxes eloquent to hold sagaciously in para 4 that, “Even though the matter has been registered as a public interest litigation on the letter of the petitioner, who himself was allegedly beaten and was eventually lodged in jail and later, granted bail, thus showing his personal involvement, but, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that misbehaviour, abuse, manhandling and many times beating of the doctors and other paramedical staff in the hospitals by the attendants of the patients has these days rather become a very regular feature. This tendency was witnessed even during the second wave of Covid-19. During that period, the Government had to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 by way of Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020 (No.34 of 2020) published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part-II dated 29.09.2020, wherein, the “act of violence”, was defined comprehensively as under:-
“THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2020
No.34 of 2020
[28th September, 2020]
3. After section 1 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:-
‘1A. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, –
(a) “act of violence” includes any of the following acts committed by any person against a healthcare service personnel serving during an epidemic, which causes or may cause-
(i) harassment impacting the living or working conditions of such healthcare service personnel and preventing him from discharging his duties;
(ii) harm, injury, hurt, intimidation or danger to the life of such healthcare service personnel, either within the premises of a clinical establishment or otherwise;
(iii) obstruction or hindrance to such healthcare service personnel in the discharge of his duties, either within the premises of a clinical establishment or otherwise; or
(iv) loss or damage to any property or documents in the custody of, or in relation to, such healthcare service personnel;
*** *** ***””
Needless to say, it also cannot be glossed over that the Bench then hastens to add in para 5 that, “On the other hand, Section 3 of the 2008 Adhiniyam inter alia provides that “Any act of assault, criminal force, intimidation and threat to medical and health service person during or incidental to discharge of his lawful duties pertinent to medical and health care delivery within medical and service institutions or in a mobile clinic or in an ambulance shall be prohibited”. However, this Court can take judicial cognizance of the fact that despite the enactment of the 2008 Adhiniyam, referred to above, which under Section 4 thereof has made such an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees or both and under Section 5, has made the offence a cognizable and non-bailable offence, the 2008 Adhiniyam, as aforesaid, has failed to achieve the intended object. This Court therefore directs the respondents-State Government to revisit the provisions of the 2008 Adhiniyam by inviting suggestions from all the stakeholders as to how it can be made more effective so as to provide deterrence to the perpetrators of such crime with the doctors and paramedical staff. The State Government, in doing so, may consider incorporating some parts of the amendments, introduced in the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, in the 2008 Adhiniyam to provide more teeth to this enactment and make it really effective with the purpose of containing recurrence of such unsavoury incidents with the doctors and paramedical staff whose services to the society deserve special recognition.”
Finally, the Bench then holds in para 6 that, “With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.”
All said and done, it must be underscored that the punishment for violence against doctors and other hospital staff has to be more strict so as to provide adequate deterrence to the perpetrators of such crime with the doctors and paramedical staff. There has to be zero tolerance for all such reprehensible crimes and no excuse of any kind should be acceptable in such cases of violence against doctors and other hospital staff! It is a matter of great solace to see that the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla have been honest and gracious enough to concede that legislation has failed to achieve its intended objective and thus commendably directed the State government to bring about appropriate amendments to curb such incidents of violence. The same must be done accordingly by the State government at the earliest to contain the growing incidents of violence against them and enforced in totality and with full swiftness to ensure that those who dare to indulge wantonly in violence against doctors and their other hospital staff are booked promptly and made to face the dire consequences! It certainly brooks no more delay anymore now!
Sanjeev Sirohi,