Savelife Foundation & Anr v. Union of India & Anr, Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 235 Of 2012 (SC)
4
ITEM NO.72 COURT NO.12 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 235 OF 2012 SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondent(s) (for final disposal) Date: 11/12/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.Adv. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain,Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra,ASG. Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv. Mr. D.S.Mahara,Adv. Mr. Rathore,Adv. Mr. D.Sehgal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the principal prayer of the petitioner is to issue guidelines in relation to the victim of Road Accidents, in other words what protection has to be provided and how best trauma treatment can be provided in case of fatal accident. It is primarily a subject which will fall in the field of the concerned -2- experts and it may not be very appropriate for this Court to venture for framing of guidelines. It is submitted brought before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that an Expert Body may be constituted to make suggestions/recommendations which may then form the basis for issuance of final guidelines by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India has submitted a short note before us. The points raised in this note with certain addition and alterations are acceptable to the petitioners. They are in relation to
-
Upload
vaishnavi-jayakumar -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
3
description
As downloaded 4-Sept-2015 http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/2352012311122012p.txt---http://scroll.in/article/734871/after-decades-india-has-guidelines-to-protect-good-samaritans-but-what-we-need-is-a-lawAfter decades, India has guidelines to protect Good Samaritans. But what we need is a lawNayantara Narayanan · Jun 18, 2015 · 10:30 amThe guidelines prevent the police or a hospital from detaining a bystander who brings an accident victim in to a medical facility. Is this enough?One evening last December, Devendra Ambedkar rushed a stranger to a hospital in Borivali, Mumbai. The man had been in a motor accident and was bleeding profusely on the road, while a large crowd of people gathered around and watched. Ambedkar and two others lifted him into an autorickshaw and took him to the emergency room of a hospital about 100 metres from the accident spot.The hospital staff first demanded to know who the men who brought the accident victim in were, Ambedkar recalls. Then they started speculating on whether it would lead to a police investigation. “We said that we would talk to the police and were not worried about the police case but they must start operating on the man. The hospital staff said we had to pay a Rs 20,000 fee before they started treatment.”For about an hour and a half, the bystanders and the hospital staff haggled over treating the victim, who ran a motor training school. During this time, Ambedkar and other bystanders managed to collect Rs 11,000 towards the stranger’s emergency care. But by then it was too late. “For the lack of Rs 9,000 the man died,” Ambedkar said.A new set of guidelines from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways aims to tighten the screws on hospitals to prevent them from denying care to accident victims. The guidelines are also set up to protect Good Samaritans like Ambedkar from having to pay up at hospitals and from getting entangled in legal cases while helping strangers injured in accidents.The ministry has asked that all registered public and private hospitals not detain bystanders bringing in the injured or demand any kind of payment from them unless they are family members of the injured person. The guidelines suggest that a lack of response be considered “professional misconduct” and disciplinary action be taken consequently.Big step forwardIndia’s roads are deadly. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau shows that more than 1.37 lakh people died in road accidents in 2013, with similar numbers being reported in previous years. According to the 201st Law Commission report on emergency medical care to accident victims, doctors found that half the fatalities in accident cases, whether on the road or otherwise, could have been averted if the victims had been admitted into a hospital in the first hour after the accident. The delay is because of India’s hugely overburdened response systems but also because bystanders hesitate to help the seriously injured.A national survey by the Save Life Foundation, an NGO focused on improving road safety in India, found that 74% of bystanders are unlikely to help victims of a serious injury.“What we were able to do at the very outset was to rule out apathy as a reason,” said Piyush Tewari, one of the founders of the Save Life Foundation. “India faces a lot of accidents. There might be a building collapse or a bus crash. The first people to help the injured people are bystanders. It is only in the case of road accidents and violence, like the Nirbhaya case in Delhi, that people are afraid to come forward.” For 88% of the people unlikely to respond, their reluctance stemmed from a fear of being dragged into protracted police investigations and legal proceedings.The new Good Samaritan guidelines are a result of a petition filed by the Save Life Foundation in the Supreme Court. After considering the petition, the court ordered the government in October last year to frame guidelines to shield Go
Transcript of Savelife Foundation & Anr v. Union of India & Anr, Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 235 Of 2012 (SC)
ITEM NO.72 COURT NO.12 SECTION PIL
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 235 OF 2012
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondent(s)
(for final disposal)
Date: 11/12/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.Adv. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain,Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra,ASG. Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv. Mr. D.S.Mahara,Adv. Mr. Rathore,Adv. Mr. D.Sehgal,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the principal prayer of the petitioner is to issue guidelines in relation to the victim of Road Accidents, in other words what protection has to be provided and how best trauma treatment can be provided in case of fatal accident. It is primarily a subject which will fall in the field of the concerned
-2- experts and it may not be very appropriate for this Court to venture for framing of guidelines. It is submitted brought before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that an Expert Body may be constituted to make suggestions/recommendations which may then form the basis for issuance of final guidelines by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India has submitted a short note before us. The points raised in this note with certain addition and alterations are acceptable to the petitioners. They are in relation to
constitution of an Expert Committee and its scope of majority. Designations and names of the members of this Committee have been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General. Thus, on the common plea of the parties we constitute the following Committee:- 1. Additional Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs; 2. Secretary and or his nominee, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to be nominated in consultation with Directorate General Health Services; 3. Secretary and or his nominee from Ministry of Law and Justice;
-3-
4. Jt. Commissioner (Traffic)-Delhi Police; 5 Chief of the AIIMS Trauma Centre; 6. The Director General or his nominee not below the rank of the Additional Director General of the Protection Road Organizations; 7. Save Life foundation representative; 8. Mr. M.P.Tiwari or his nominee from any of the NAOS John Ambulance representative.
The Committee shall be chaired by Mr. V.S. Agarwal, former Judge, Delhi High Court, Secretary or his nominee, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be the nodal officer for the purpose of holding these meetings as well as to ensure the submissions or the recommendation to this Court within the time allowed. We also permit the Committee to receive expert advise/consultation from Dr. G.Guru Raj, Collaborating Centre for Injury Prevention & Safety Promotion, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, if they so deem necessary. The scope of reference of this Committee shall be as follows:
-4- i)To identify public and private hospitals throughout the country to conduct training programmes to provide trainers at district level for training volunteers who are part of the district emergency medical response teams.
ii)Training the State Police personnel in basic first- aid techniques and interrogation and treatment of persons who help accident victims by incorporating the same as part of the curriculum of the Police training schools and colleges.
iii)Incorporating basic first-aid training a part of the school curriculum. Creation of ambulance, first aid medical centres and designated highway police in each State.
iv)Networking of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Ambulances with first and second level trauma centres by NHAI with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and State Governments.
v)Providing of infrastructure and connectivity between trauma centres at different places and monitoring progress.
-5-
vi)Providing infrastructural support to the National Highway Administration brought in by the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.
vii)Study the extent to which schemes for emergency care for road accident victims, as submitted by Respondent No.1, have been implemented. The outcome this study would be a report with evidence based representation of reality of such schemes on the ground.
viii)Study the effectiveness of such schemes with regard to their responsiveness towards injured victims an ability to save lives. The outcome of this study would be measurable parameters such as availability of universal access number for victims to call for help, average response times taken in reaching injured victims, quality of care provided, etc. The measurement parameters would be established in the first meeting of the Committee.
ix)Identify the root causes for fear of harassment and legal hassles in general public regarding helping injured victims.
-6-
x)Deliberate and develop a set of guidelines for protecting Good Samaritans from police harassment and legal hassles. The guidelines will aim to address the root causes for fear of harassment and legal hassles in general public regarding helping injured victims. These guidelines will also serve as a foundation for further legislative work in the area of protecting Good Samaritans.
xi)The Committee will submit its complete report to the Hon'ble Supreme Court within 3 months from the date of Order."
The Chairman of the Expert Committee shall receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m. as honorarium in addition to all the expenses that he may like to incur. While making its recommendations the Committee can also examine such material or comments as are submitted by Union of India or any other Committee or Organization on the subject in question for its consideration. We direct the aforesaid Committee to submit its report within three months from today. Stand over for three months.
[SUMAN WADHWA] [S.S.R. KRISHNA] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
