Justice Viswanathan noted that pharmacies are already overcrowded, and if such requirements were implemented, general practitioners could only see 10-15 patients per day.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on Thursday,(14th Nov) rejected a plea that sought to make it mandatory for medical professionals to inform patients about potential risks associated with prescribed medications.
The Bench, led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, remarked that the request was impractical.
“It is not practical,” said a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan.
Justice Viswanathan noted that pharmacies are already overcrowded, and if such requirements were implemented, general practitioners could only see 10-15 patients per day.
Additionally, concerns regarding consumer protection cases were raised.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, proposed that doctors use pre-prepared printed forms to outline potential side effects of medications. However, Justice Gavai countered that each patient receives different medications, making this suggestion difficult to implement.
Bhushan argued that adverse effects of medicines cause significant harm to patients, citing the World Health Organisation. Nonetheless, the Court chose not to pursue the matter further.
Justice Viswanathan suggested that a more feasible solution could be to provide local language indicators in pharmacies, advising patients to read medicine labels carefully.
“It would help prevent consumer protection cases related to medical negligence,” Bhushan said, suggesting that doctors could easily use printed proformas to inform patients about the potential side effects of prescribed medications.
The bench, however, pointed out that doctors often prescribe different medications to different patients.
Bhushan argued that the World Health Organization (WHO) has highlighted the harm caused to patients due to incorrect medication prescriptions.
The bench also noted that doctors were dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which placed the medical profession under the Consumer Protection Act.
“Sorry,” the bench concluded, dismissing the plea.
The high court had earlier heard a petition seeking directions to the Centre and the National Medical Commission to require medical professionals to inform patients, in the form of an additional slip in the regional language with the prescription, about the potential risks and side effects of the prescribed drugs.
The petitioner argued that patients have a right to make an informed decision, and it should be mandatory for doctors to explain the side effects of medicines to patients.
The petitioner acknowledged that the information provided by the manufacturer through the drug insert at the time of sale by the registered pharmacist was sufficient.
The high court noted that since the legislature had already assigned this responsibility to the manufacturer and pharmacist, it found no reason to issue the directions requested in the PIL, which it believed would amount to judicial legislation.
Dismissing the plea, the high court concluded that since there was no existing gap in the information provided, the requested directions could not be issued.
