Right to Emergency Care

kalpeshc · 9th October 2007, 16:11

Right to Emergency Care:
Date Of Judgment: 23/02/2007.
Case No.: Appeal (civil) 919 of 2007.

The Supreme Court has ruled that all injured persons especially in the case of road traffic accidents, assaults, etc., when brought to a hospital / medical centre, have to be offered first aid, stabilized and shifted to a higher centre / government centre if required. It is only after this that the hospital can demand payment or complete police formalities. In case you are a bystander and wish to help someone in an accident, please go ahead and do so. Your responsibility ends as soon as you leave the person at the hospital.

The hospital bears the responsibility of informing the police, first aid, etc.

Please do inform your family and friends about these basic rights so that we all know what to expect and what to do in the hour of need.

carboy · 9th October 2007, 16:25

This is a hoax. There is no such Supreme court ruling.

thefreak · 9th October 2007, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by carboy

This is a hoax. There is no such Supreme court ruling.

Hey! Even I got a mail stating this thing. @carboy are you sure it is a hoax?

Can others please substantiate the claims either way!

Zappo · 9th October 2007, 18:16

Hoax or not but one thing is sure. The actual judgement given against the case no. mentioned in the mail is a different one from this one. Since then I did some research and as far as I could find the Hindu gave adequate coverage to a law being mulled by the government on these lines. That was in mid 2006.

Later, in November 2006 government even introduced a bill on these lines in the Rajya Sabha. However what happened after that, whether it was finally passed... I could not find that out.

So till we find out something more we should only take this so called judgement with a dash of salt.

spadival · 9th October 2007, 19:21

First, Parliament should introduce a "Right to early judgment instead of running around courts for years" amendment ..

Enough said about useless judgements..

benkey2 · 23rd November 2008, 13:07

i received this mail forward few days back. when i read the "old madras road" thread ) , i thought of posting it there. since that old thread was closed i am posting it here.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street...samaritan.html (Accident in Old Madras Road + Good Samaritan)

i am not sure about the source or genuineness, because it's a forwarded mail.

moreover why from an LIC member?

just after posting this thread, read a thread similar to this. sorry for starting a new thread.
sorry again to mods.

HappyWheels · 23rd November 2008, 15:04

If there was indeed a ruling like this then it should have been in the paper.

And why does the note mentions about passing on to people. A standard line used by spammers (not that this is).

Would be great if this was true.

greenhorn · 23rd November 2008, 15:21

seems fake. the details listed at The Judgment Information System for the case mentioned above are totally irrelevant ( thats some tax related stuff concerning some hospital)

and a i find it strange that a notice printed on paper would end thataway.

BaCkSeAtDrIVeR · 23rd November 2008, 16:44

The message, the letter on LIC agent's letter head, etc, may be fake, but the right is for real.

You have the right to receive treatment at government run hospitals. See this discussion - Health care in public hospitals - a fundamental right - Legalities - Healthcare Management and another summary of the same decision at Paschim Banga khet Mazdoor Samity versus State of West Bengal 1996 SOL Case No. 169 (Supreme Court of India) —

There is a more specific case - on the situation in accident cases - please see NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, which is a direct application of earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject.

The law commission of India has suggested legislation in this regard too - see this pdf file - http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep201.pdf

(sarcasm)
So why should an LIC agent spread the word? So that less lives are lost due to denial of medical care; so that there are less claims are paid out!!!
(/sarcasm)

wildon · 14th November 2009, 10:51

Well i just received this today through my mail and first searched here for further information and ended up here. Up on searching further i found this . Please read.

Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India

9th October 2007, 16:11	#1
kalpeshc BHPian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Mumbai Posts: 364 Thanked: 41 Times	Right to Emergency Care Right to Emergency Care: Date Of Judgment: 23/02/2007. Case No.: Appeal (civil) 919 of 2007. The Supreme Court has ruled that all injured persons especially in the case of road traffic accidents, assaults, etc., when brought to a hospital / medical centre, have to be offered first aid, stabilized and shifted to a higher centre / government centre if required. It is only after this that the hospital can demand payment or complete police formalities. In case you are a bystander and wish to help someone in an accident, please go ahead and do so. Your responsibility ends as soon as you leave the person at the hospital. The hospital bears the responsibility of informing the police, first aid, etc. Please do inform your family and friends about these basic rights so that we all know what to expect and what to do in the hour of need. Last edited by GTO : 9th October 2007 at 16:16.

9th October 2007, 18:16	#4
Zappo Team-BHP Support Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hyderabad Posts: 4,549 Thanked: 495 Times	Hoax or not but one thing is sure. The actual judgement given against the case no. mentioned in the mail is a different one from this one. Since then I did some research and as far as I could find the Hindu gave adequate coverage to a law being mulled by the government on these lines. That was in mid 2006. Later, in November 2006 government even introduced a bill on these lines in the Rajya Sabha. However what happened after that, whether it was finally passed... I could not find that out. So till we find out something more we should only take this so called judgement with a dash of salt. Last edited by Zappo : 9th October 2007 at 18:19.

23rd November 2008, 13:07	#6
benkey2 BHPian Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: chennai Posts: 94 Thanked: Once	Right to emergency care i received this mail forward few days back. when i read the "old madras road" thread ) , i thought of posting it there. since that old thread was closed i am posting it here. http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street...samaritan.html (Accident in Old Madras Road + Good Samaritan) i am not sure about the source or genuineness, because it's a forwarded mail. moreover why from an LIC member? just after posting this thread, read a thread similar to this. sorry for starting a new thread. sorry again to mods. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by benkey2 : 23rd November 2008 at 13:19.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Emergency driving - Without clutch	sudev	Technical Stuff	93	24th April 2013 10:20
Paint Care & protection - Car Care India (V V Puram, Bangalore)	s.prashanth	Bangalore	7	24th December 2012 09:14
Emergency driving - Without brakes	sudev	Technical Stuff	82	15th September 2011 18:53
Emergency communication with other cars	mooza	Street and Travel Experiences	9	24th August 2010 13:55

9th October 2007, 16:25	#2
carboy Senior - BHPian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Mumbai Posts: 1,186 Thanked: 169 Times	This is a hoax. There is no such Supreme court ruling.

9th October 2007, 19:21	#5
spadival Senior - BHPian Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,769 Thanked: 2 Times View My Garage	First, Parliament should introduce a "Right to early judgment instead of running around courts for years" amendment .. Enough said about useless judgements..

23rd November 2008, 15:04	#7
HappyWheels Senior - BHPian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Dubai Posts: 3,761 Thanked: 40 Times	If there was indeed a ruling like this then it should have been in the paper. And why does the note mentions about passing on to people. A standard line used by spammers (not that this is). Would be great if this was true.

23rd November 2008, 15:21	#8
greenhorn Distinguished - BHPian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: TN-22 Posts: 6,003 Thanked: 265 Times View My Garage	seems fake. the details listed at The Judgment Information System for the case mentioned above are totally irrelevant ( thats some tax related stuff concerning some hospital) and a i find it strange that a notice printed on paper would end thataway.

23rd November 2008, 16:44	#9
BaCkSeAtDrIVeR Senior - BHPian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Kochi Posts: 2,142 Thanked: 128 Times	The message, the letter on LIC agent's letter head, etc, may be fake, but the right is for real. You have the right to receive treatment at government run hospitals. See this discussion - Health care in public hospitals - a fundamental right - Legalities - Healthcare Management and another summary of the same decision at Paschim Banga khet Mazdoor Samity versus State of West Bengal 1996 SOL Case No. 169 (Supreme Court of India) — There is a more specific case - on the situation in accident cases - please see NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, which is a direct application of earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject. The law commission of India has suggested legislation in this regard too - see this pdf file - http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep201.pdf (sarcasm) So why should an LIC agent spread the word? So that less lives are lost due to denial of medical care; so that there are less claims are paid out!!! (/sarcasm)

14th November 2009, 10:51	#10
wildon Distinguished - BHPian Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 2,259 Thanked: 659 Times View My Garage	Well i just received this today through my mail and first searched here for further information and ended up here. Up on searching further i found this . Please read. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India