This article explains a case of a doctor who got threatened and restricted from her job while executing her duties. This case could enable physicians to comprehend more about the healthcare act, of 2012. 

The Kerala High Court, in denying an accused of blocking a doctor while she was executing her official duties, said that any obstruction of medical personnel would constitute an act of violence.

The healthcare Act, 2012

According to a recent ruling by the Kerala High Court, the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012 (the Healthcare Act) makes it a serious and non-bailable offence to prevent healthcare workers from performing their duties. According to Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, the goal of the Act was to minimise all forms of violence against medical workers.

Section 2

The objective of the definition of "violence" in Section 2(e) was to provide the term with the greatest possible breadth. Violence is defined as any act that harms, intimidates, obstructs, or hinders a healthcare professional while they are executing their duty.

Section 3: 

Section 3 of the Healthcare Act prohibits violence against healthcare service professionals.

Section 4(4):

Section 4(4) of the Act prohibits bail for such offences. It is obvious what the legislators meant. In its ruling, the Court noted that healthcare service providers should not be subjected to intimidation, obstruction, or obstacle.

Case

The individual accused of threatening and restricting a doctor while she was on duty submitted an application for anticipatory bail.

Charges:

1. He was charged with breaching Sections 3 and 4(1) of the Healthcare Act.
2. Sections 341 (wrongful restraint).
3. 353 (attack or criminal force to prevent a public servant from doing his duty).
4. And 506 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal intimidation).

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner might be granted anticipatory release since the accusations in the first information report (FIR) only suggested a minor offence, especially considering the lack of any violence or bodily injury. In contrast, offences under the Healthcare Act are not eligible for bail, although crimes under the IPC are.

The Court agreed with the Public Prosecutor that the wide definition of "violence" must be taken into consideration if the Healthcare Act is to achieve its purpose of safeguarding healthcare staff and infrastructure. Any failure to do so will likely result in worse health care for the general population.

A physician's anxiousness, a surgeon's trembling hands, and a nurse's uneasiness may lead to incorrect diagnoses, also botched operations, and inadequate nursing care. Multiple patients' lives might be in jeopardy. The Court determined that the general public may acquire bias as a consequence. The Court declined to grant the petitioner anticipatory bail based on its interpretation of the law.

Disclaimer- The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of M3 India.

The author is a practising super specialist from New Delhi.