DOCTORS MUST KNOW THESE LAWS FOR THEIR PROFESSION

There are so many laws and rules and regulation for doctors. But the doctors starting his profession in India must know following laws related to their profession.

1. Consumer Protection Act

2. The Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and

3. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2000

The first law is Consumer Protection Act, as the doctors services are covered under this Act and they are liable for any sort of negligence and deficiency in their service and therefore liable for damage and compensation for their act. Therefore they must know about this act and should be very cautious at the time of treatment to their patients. Some time a fake case is also filed against doctor in greed of money, so he must be very vigilant and be ready to counter the fake his with their medico legal scientific evidence.

Pre-conception or Pre-natal Sex determination is an offence in India as per The Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and enacted to stop female foeticide and arrest the declining sex ratio in India. The act banned prenatal sex determination. Every genetic counselling center, genetic laboratory or genetic clinic engaged in counselling or conducting pre-natal diagnostics techniques, like in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with the potential of sex selection (Preimplantation genetic diagnosis) before and after conception comes under preview of the PC&PNDT Act and are banned. The main purpose of enacting the act is to ban the use of sex selection techniques after conception and prevent the misuse of prenatal diagnostic technique for sex selective abortions. Therefore doctors must be aware of this law which require registration of the centre and also require its renewal from time to time. They also require keeping various records related to their patients.   

Third is The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2000 in which doctors are liable for their professional misconducts like advertisement which they can not do and their duties related to their patients, among their colleague, duties to public and paramedical professional etc. In this area of misconduct the State Medical Council is empower to take action against the doctors and even can suspend the doctors for as a punishment for their misconduct. If any punishment is awarded to doctors by the State Medical Council, he can file its appeal before Medical Council of India. But Medical Council of India has no power to stay the order of State Medical Council, and for that doctors have to move writ petition before the High Court.

In this way we see that above these three law / regulations is very-very important for a doctors to know before starting their profession.

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

T.C.Mathai & Anr. Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (1999) 3SCC 614. Date of Judgement: 31.03.1999.

                        FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant claims to be the power-of-attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) living in Kuwait.   He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions.    Session Court:- Permission was declined, as the request for such permission did not emanate from the respondent-couple themselves. There upon appellant moved the High Court of   Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the Sessions Judge concerned to grant the permission sought for.   Single Judge of the High Court:- dismissed the Original Petition against which appellant filed a writ appeal.   Division Bench of the High Co...
Read more

Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. M/s Jacks Aviation Private Ltd; (1999) 1 SCC 37.

  (Case regarding boycotting a particular court) Date of Judgement: 13.11.1998.    Bench:   S.Saghir Ahmad,   K.T.Thomas.     Judgement: Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must run its even course unbridled by any boycott call of the Bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate judicial   functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge their duties without fear. But unfortunately this case reflects apathy on the part of the High Court in affording such protection to a judicial functionary who resisted, through legal means, a pressure strategy slammed on him in open court.    It all happened in the...
Read more

L.C.Goyal vs. Nawal Kishore (1997) 11 SCC 258.

                                Date of Judgement: 09.01.1997.                 (Issue of Bogus Cash Receipt by A.O.R. to the Client (Court-fee)                                                        ORDER   This appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is directed against the Order of Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 24.6.1983 whereby  the appellant has been suspended from practice for a period of six months.   1.   FACT OF THE CASE:-          The  appellant  was practicing as  an   Advocate-an-Record in this Court.  He  was engaged by one Nawal Kishore (the complainant )  to fil...
Read more