- The recent winter session of the Parliament will go down in the history of Indian democracy as momentous in more than one way. Of course, the country was witness to an unprecedented security breach in the Lok Sabha when unscrupulous elements threw smoke canisters while the session was on. Thankfully, the smoke turned out to be non-toxic, but the seriousness associated with the security breach in one of the most secure establishments in the country surely deserves a thorough investigation. Now what followed the aftermath of the incident is not unfamiliar to us as disruptions and logjams have become the norm of sorts in the Parliament’s functioning over the last few years. The opposition was at it sensing an opportunity to corner the government.
PC: WTOP
- The Parliament witnessed extraordinary suspensions in both houses as more than 145 MPs were barred from the winter session by the presiding officers. Amid the din, the union home minister introduced and ensured the passing of the new criminal bills replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Codes. The second iteration of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which will replace IPC, was passed by the Lok Sabha recently. Remember, the Rajya Sabha too passed it the other day. The bill was introduced in the House on December 12. In the version passed recently, there was an amendment to provide a special dispensation for registered medical practitioners. In clause 106 of BNS, death caused by a rash or negligent act can lead to a jail term of up to five years and a fine.
- However, in the case of medical negligence, the quantum of punishment has been diluted to a maximum of two years and a fine. While speaking on the bill, the home minister mentioned the amendment was introduced following a request from the India Medical Association. Note that medical negligence attracts three provisions. The interpretation of these provisions has been shaped by case laws, of which two Supreme Court judgments are relevant. Case laws have provided medical practitioners with layers of protection from flimsy charges of negligence. The landmark case here (Jacob Mathew vs the State of Punjab) distinguished occupational negligence and professional negligence. It said that neither a simple lack of care nor an error of judgment is proof of negligence.
PC: UCSF
- These principles were reiterated in another apex court judgment two months ago. This verdict said that to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold must be met. Of course, doctors were given protection from even filing cases on account of the specialization involved in medical procedures. Even arrests are the exceptions rather than the rule. The available evidence suggests that medical practitioners already receive a higher level of protection against complaints of negligence. Making a case of negligence is hard and successfully prosecuting one is harder. Thus, there was no convincing case for IMA to lobby for a lighter punishment in the rare event a doctor is found guilty of negligence. As such, another amendment to BNS should take care of this.
