Latest news with #ProfessionalConduct
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- Health
- New Indian Express
‘Reply on medical consent rights of same-sex partners'
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Thursday sought responses from three Union ministries and the National Medical Commission on a plea demanding legal recognition for non-heterosexual partners as legitimate medical representatives in emergencies and treatment scenarios. Justice Sachin Datta issued notice to the Ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Law and Justice, and Social Justice and Empowerment, asking them to clarify their stand on a matter that strikes at the heart of healthcare equality and constitutional rights. The petition has been filed by Arshiya Takkar, who has urged the court to frame concrete guidelines recognising non-heterosexual partners as valid representatives capable of giving consent in medical decision-making. In the alternative, she has asked the court to declare that a medical power of attorney executed in advance should suffice for such partners to act as the patient's representative during emergencies. At the core of the legal challenge is Clause 7.16 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which mandates that consent for medical procedures be obtained from 'husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself'. The plea also invokes Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the denial of such a right infringes upon an individual's right to dignity and personal autonomy in relationships, particularly during moments of vulnerability like medical emergencies.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Explain med consent bar on same-sex people: Delhi HC
File photo NEW DELHI: Delhi HC Thursday sought Centre's explanation for excluding same-sex couples from the right to make medical decisions for each other during treatment. Justice Sachin Datta observed there appeared to be no reason why this right should 'not be available' to same-sex or unmarried couples under Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. It directed Centre and National Medical Commission to respond within four weeks. The 2002 regulations state that consent for medical procedures must be obtained from 'husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself.' HC was hearing a plea by Arshiya Takkar seeking legal recognition for queer couples to make medical decisions for partners during emergencies. The plea argued that lack of guidelines leaves queer partners powerless in critical situations and amounts to bias. Justice Datta also questioned how the rules applied to orphans or people living alone and asked Centre to clarify.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Health
- The Hindu
Petition in Delhi HC seeks medical consent rights for same-sex partners
The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notices to the Centre and the National Medical Commission on a plea seeking recognition of non-heterosexual partners as each other's legitimate medical representatives, allowing them to give consent for treatment. The petition was filed by Arshiya Takkar, who married her same-sex partner in New Zealand in 2023 and is living with her partner in Delhi. The petition highlighted the lack of clear legal framework or common law recognising 'partners in a union', making it difficult to provide consent during medical treatment or emergencies. Ms. Takkar, represented by senior advocates Saurabh Kirpal and Shyel Trehan, stated in her plea that the existing regulation — Clause 7.16 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 — mandates consent for medical procedures or treatment from a 'husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself'. 'This lack of explicit recognition of partners in a union renders the petitioner effectively powerless to make critical medical decisions for her partner, or vice versa, a right readily available to heterosexual partners under the current regulations,' it stated. The petition, filed through advocates Manjira Dasgupta and Bhargav Ravindran Thali, contended that despite the Supreme Court directive for a high-powered committee to address entitlements of LGBTQIA+ couples, including their recognition as 'family' for medical decision-making, the authorities have failed to take expeditious measures. 'This inaction leaves the petitioner and other same-sex couples vulnerable and unable to exercise the fundamental right to care for each other in medical emergencies,' the plea said. During the hearing, Justice Sachin Datta asked the counsel representing the Centre, 'What will be in case if the person is an orphan? What if the person is living alone? Who will give consent for them?' The court directed the Centre to file its reply within four weeks.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Don't see why not…': Delhi HC on plea seeking rights for same-sex couples to make medical decisions for each other
The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the central government to respond to a plea by a woman, who sought that non-heterosexual couples get the right to make medical decisions for each other. The high court sought responses from the Union ministries of health, law, and social justice and empowerment, as well as the National Medical Commission (NMC), orally remarking that it does not see a reason why such a provision should not exist. Arshiya Takkar, a leadership coach and family business consultant who got married to her long-term partner, advocate Chand Chopra, in New Zealand in December 2023, has moved the Delhi High Court, highlighting that there exists 'no framework which grants or recognizes the rights of non-heterosexual couples to act as a medical representative of their respective partners during medical treatment/emergencies'. Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, appearing for Takkar, highlighted that the lack of guidelines in this regard leaves a 'big lacuna in case of queer couples and public at large'. Takkar underscored the 'critical need for recognition of their union in medical contexts,' as Chopra's immediate family members reside in different states or countries, making them potentially inaccessible during a medical emergency, and highlighted her 'indispensable role as her partner's decision-maker'. Takkar's petition submits that the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 mandate consent for medical procedures/treatment from a 'husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of minor, or the patient himself', thus lacking 'explicit recognition of partners in a union', effectively making her 'powerless to make critical medical decisions' for her partner. Takkar has cited that this is arbitrary, a breach of her fundamental right of expression, and discrimination on the grounds of sex. 'The prevailing legal framework and practices, by effectively restricting medical decision-making rights to heterosexual couples or normative family members, are inconsistent with this evolving constitutional understanding and violate constitutional morality, which mandates respect for diversity and individual dignity. The absence of legal recognition for same-sex partners in medical decision-making also contravenes India's international obligations,' Takkar has submitted. Takkar has sought the court's direction to frame guidelines directing hospitals/physicians to recognise non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives and grant them access during medical treatment. She is also seeking a declaration that a medical power of attorney given in advance by a patient to their non-heterosexual partner shall be sufficient for such partner to act as the duly constituted medical representative. Taken up before Justice Sachin Datta, the court orally remarked that it can consider the latter request, on declaring that a medical power of attorney given in advance to their partner shall suffice for consideration as being their medical representative. Kirpal further added that in the interim, the Centre too can consider framing guidelines. Meanwhile, the central government's standing counsel, Monika Arora, opposed the plea, orally submitting that while the Supreme Court has laid down 'that there should not be discrimination in goods and services available to the public', such a provision is not available for unmarried heterosexual couples, say for example a man and a woman in a live-in relationship, and thus the question of discrimination does not arise. 'Here, if someone is in a live-in relationship, a boy and girl, this (provision to authorise their partner as their medical representative) is not available,' Arora submitted. Responding to the Centre's assertion, Kirpal responded, 'I am sure the Union (government) won't be so inhuman…I am surprised. An unmarried man and woman are allowed to get married (but queer couples are not in India).' Justice Datta also orally inquired from the Centre, 'Let us take the case of a heterosexual situation, I don't see why this regime shouldn't be there. Suppose there is someone living all by himself or herself, what then?…or they are estranged from their family?' Issuing notice, the court sought the responses of the government ministries and NMC, and has now kept the matter for consideration next on October 27.
Time of India
05-07-2025
- Time of India
Ludh doctor booked for falsely declaring injury as grievous
Ludhiana: Police filed a case against a doctor for fraudulently declaring a person's injury as grievous and issuing a false medico legal report (MLR). The accused was identified as Jasvir Singh Kathuria of a nursing home in Samrala Chowk. The FIR suggests that a case of attempted murder was registered against four individuals from Sarabha Nagar, on April 11, 2024. Later, Palwinder Kaur, wife of one of the accused, moved an application to the police commissioner, seeking an inquiry into injuries suffered by Daljit Singh, the complainant. A five-member medical board was constituted by the then civil surgeon, Dr Jasbir Singh Aulakh, on April 16. The board comprised Dr Varun Saggar, senior medical officer (SMO), Hathur; Dr Davinder, senior medical officer (SMO), CHC Sudhar; Dr Ravi Datt, senior medical officer, Manupur; Dr Gurbinder Singh Kakkar (forensic expert), civil hospital, Khanna; and Dr Aditya Prakash (orthopaedician). The FIR says that the inquiry report of the medical board was sent to the police commissioner on May 2 last year. The board observed, "from the available record, the board of doctors is of the unanimous opinion that there is nothing to suggest that any injury on the person of Daljit Singh was either grievous or dangerous in nature. Rather, it was done fraudulently." The inquiry report by the then civil surgeon mentioned that the accused doctor did not follow guidelines of the government of Punjab and the Punjab and Haryana high court. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription? Techno Mag Learn More Undo Emphasising that there was no evidence of a life threatening injury, the report also raised questions on the investigating officer from Sarabha Nagar police station, ASI Umesh Kumar. As per the report, during his appearance before the inquiry panel, he failed to produce any medical record that could prove that any injury on Daljit Singh was life-threatening in nature. In the inquiry report, the then civil surgeon also recommended to the registrar, Punjab Medical Council, Mohali, to delete the name of Dr Jasvir Singh Kathuria permanently from the register of Punjab Medical Council, Mohali, as per section 7.7 of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Police said that legal opinion was sought from the deputy district attorney (legal), who said that a doctor issuing a fraudulent MLC can face both criminal and civil legal action. Sarabha Nagar police on Friday registered a case under sections 420 (cheating), 195 (giving or fabricating false evidence), and 197 (issuing or signing of false certificates) of the IPC against the accused. Incidentally, police sources said that the IO on whom the medical board had raised questions was assigned the same case. MSID:: 122269439 413 |
