The Duty to Treat under Health Law
⚖️ What is the “Duty to Treat”?
The "Duty to Treat" is a legal and ethical obligation imposed upon healthcare professionals and institutions to provide medical care to those in need, especially in emergencies or when refusal would result in harm.
It is rooted in:
Medical ethics
Constitutional principles (Right to life under Article 21)
Health regulations and licensing
Judicial pronouncements enforcing patients' rights
🔍 Scope of the Duty to Treat
The duty applies primarily to:
Doctors (individual medical professionals)
Hospitals (both public and private)
Emergency medical services (ambulance, casualty wards, etc.)
🧾 Key Principles Underlying the Duty
Right to Emergency Medical Care
No patient can be denied emergency medical care, regardless of their ability to pay or legal status.
Non-Discrimination
Medical treatment must be provided without discrimination based on religion, caste, gender, socioeconomic status, or disease condition (e.g., HIV, mental illness).
Standard of Care
Treatment provided must meet basic professional and ethical standards.
Continuity of Care
Doctors and hospitals must not abandon a patient mid-treatment without reasonable cause.
Consent and Autonomy
Treatment must respect the patient’s autonomy, except in life-saving emergencies.
📚 Landmark Case Laws (Primarily Indian)
1. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039
FACTS: A man injured in a road accident was refused treatment by a hospital because it was a medico-legal case.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that every doctor has a professional duty to treat the injured without waiting for procedural formalities, such as police clearance.
Key Quote: “Preservation of human life is of paramount importance... every doctor has the professional obligation to extend his services to protect life.”
🔑 Legal Principle: Emergency medical care is part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37
FACTS: A labourer suffered a head injury and was denied treatment by multiple hospitals citing lack of facilities.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the State has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical facilities and cannot shirk this responsibility.
Key Quote: “Failure of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment... results in violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21.”
🔑 Legal Principle: Duty to treat is not only on doctors but also on State-run health systems.
3. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651
FACTS: Considered whether medical professionals could be held accountable under consumer protection law.
HELD:
While this case primarily discusses doctors’ liability under the Consumer Protection Act, the judgment emphasized that medical services are not a privilege but a duty arising from professional standards and ethics.
🔑 Legal Principle: Duty to treat is implicit in the doctor-patient relationship and enforceable through law.
4. Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital, 2005 CPJ 35 (NC)
FACTS: A patient was brought to the hospital after an accident but was refused admission due to inability to pay an advance.
HELD:
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that such refusal amounted to medical negligence and deficiency in service.
🔑 Legal Principle: No hospital can deny emergency care based solely on financial considerations.
🏥 Hospitals’ Obligation to Treat
Private hospitals, once registered and licensed, have a statutory and ethical obligation to treat patients, especially:
In accident and trauma cases
During public health emergencies (pandemics, epidemics)
When no other facility is available
They cannot:
Deny treatment based on inability to pay (at least in emergency)
Discriminate among patients
Abandon treatment arbitrarily
⚠️ Exceptions / Limitations to the Duty to Treat
While the duty is strong, it is not absolute. Some exceptions include:
Lack of specialization: A hospital may refer a patient to a more suitable facility if it lacks the ability to treat the case, but must stabilize the patient first.
Non-emergency refusal: A doctor may refuse treatment in elective or non-urgent situations (e.g., not accepting new patients), but must not discriminate.
Threat to the provider: In rare cases, if the provider is under physical threat, they may be justified in refusing.
However, none of these apply in life-threatening emergencies.
🌍 Global Influence & Ethical Foundations
While this explanation avoids external laws, it is worth noting that globally, the duty to treat is supported by:
World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Geneva
Hippocratic Oath – “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required...”
Ethically, the principle of beneficence (do good) and non-maleficence (do no harm) are central to this duty.
🧩 Summary Table
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Definition | Obligation of healthcare providers to offer treatment, especially in emergencies. |
| Key Constitutional Basis | Article 21 – Right to Life (India) |
| Leading Case | Parmanand Katara v. Union of India – No refusal in emergencies. |
| Hospital Duty | Cannot deny emergency treatment; must stabilize patient before referral. |
| Exceptions | Lack of capacity, elective cases, threat to provider – but not in emergencies. |
| Ethical Foundation | Medical ethics, Hippocratic Oath, Geneva Declaration |
🏁 Conclusion
The Duty to Treat under health law reflects the moral, ethical, and legal responsibility of doctors and hospitals to provide care without prejudice, especially in emergencies. Courts have clearly held that right to medical care is part of the right to life, and that denial of such care—whether due to cost, formality, or convenience—violates this right.
RELATED Blog
0 comments