Today, On 19th November, The Supreme Court said it “cannot issue blanket protection orders” for doctors participating in protests after the rape and murder of a trainee doctor in Kolkata, noting that protection must depend on specific facts while the larger issue of safety remains under scrutiny.
The Supreme Court said that medical seats should not remain vacant when India is facing a shortage of doctors. This came while hearing petitions asking admission authorities to hold a special or stray counseling round for unfilled seats. These requests were made even after five rounds of counseling had already been completed. The court stressed the need to use all available resources to address the country’s healthcare challenges.
The Supreme Court on Thursday,(14th Nov) rejected a plea to mandate doctors to inform patients about medication risks, deeming it impractical due to overcrowded pharmacies and doctors’ limited patient consultations. Suggestions for printed forms were dismissed as unfeasible. The court stressed existing responsibilities of manufacturers and pharmacists to provide such information, concluding no legislative gap existed.
Today, On 6th November, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition regarding lawyers’ mental health, urging Bar Associations to provide support instead of seeking court intervention. The Chief Justice emphasized the importance of proactive measures for mental wellness in the legal profession, highlighting a significant lack of targeted resources in India compared to other countries.
![[RG Kar Rape-murder case] Indian Medical Association to File Plea to Intervene in SC's Suo motu case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-91-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to establish a 10-member Task Force to address violence against medical professionals. The IMA will continue to push for a Central Law to protect medical professionals. The Supreme Court also directed the CBI to provide updates on the investigation into the recent rape and murder of a junior doctor in Kolkata.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL petition asking for doctors to provide written information on medication side effects, stating that the duty to inform patients lies with drug manufacturers and pharmacists. The court rejected the argument that doctors should also provide this information, deeming the PIL unnecessary. The petitioner’s claim was not seen as disputing the adequacy of the existing framework.
The Apex Court suggested Today (May 14th) a review of its 1996 ruling regarding the application of the Consumer Protection Act to medical professionals. Previously the court had determined that services provided by doctors fall under the Act if payment is involved. Court noted no legislative intention to include professionals within the Act’s scope. Hence, they proposed reconsidering the decision and referred the matter to the CJI.
