If doctors can be prosecuted for wrong diagnosis, should it be the same for the judiciary too Doctors and lawyers weigh in
Last week, a blog post on a consumer resources forum, which was attributed to a certain Dr Ramesh Ganesan, drew attention to some aspects about the judiciary. In a post under the header “Doctors v/s Judges”, Dr Ganesan raised some questions as to why the judiciary, like doctors, hasn’t been brought under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) as yet. He went on to state that while doctors are often penalised for a “wrong diagnosis”, the judges go unpunished even if they declare a “wrong verdict”.
Dr Ganesan cites the Salman Khan hit-and-run case as an example, where the lower court sentenced the actor to a jail term of five years, but the Bombay High Court acquitted him of all charges. “In the Salman Khan hit and run case the lower court judge and the High Court judge had the same pieces of evidence to deal with. They also had the same Indian law to abide by and most probably they had similar education qualifications too. Yet they interpreted the situation in absolutely contrasting manner and gave verdicts, which are poles apart,” the post states. In another point, he addresses the disparity between how a medical practitioner is treated as opposed to the judiciary. “If a doctor making a wrong diagnosis can be prosecuted, shouldn’t a judge giving wrong verdicts meet the same fate ... If doctors and hospitals have a duty towards the society then does the judiciary not have a responsibility towards the society ” (sic)
We gleaned some insights on the topic from both sides of the table and doctors and members of the judiciary shared contrasting views. According to Mihir Desai, senior counsel from the Bombay High Court, CPA isn’t the answer to curb discrepancies in the judiciary. He points out that lawyers, in fact, are already covered under the CPA and goes on to explain how the Indian judiciary has always made provisions for citizens to appeal to the higher courts if they aren’t happy with the judgement. Mihir says, “We need to realise that even trenchant criticism of a judgment by laypersons is permitted under our system. What’s not permissible is attacks on the judge. We must remember that two equally intelligent and honest judges can come to a diametrically opposite view on facts or even the interpretation of law in a given case.”
Dr Alpa Dalal, pulmonologist at the Dr. L.H. Hiranandani Hospital, argues that for the law to be taken seriously by its citizens, the judiciary needs to be answerable to its citizens. She says, “No profession is above people. People aren’t fearful about the law any more because they think that the judiciary can be easily bribed. If the judiciary is under a body like CPA, I think it will help reduce crime rates.” Dr. Vishal Chopra, diabetologist points out that just as doctors have a responsibility towards society, so does the judiciary. He says, “Laws are in place to make life easier for citizens. Doctors are trained to save lives, and judges have taken responsibility to take care of the law. “
If getting the judiciary under the CPA or an independent body will help the make things easier for society then why not ”
Dr. Dalal adds that there are many factors like timing, unclear symptoms and even infrastructure that can go wrong while diagnosing a patient. She points out that judges, on the other hand, have way more time, that sometimes stretches up to years, to come up with a verdict. She says, “Doctors work under pressure, since here we are talking about saving someone’s life in a matter of minutes/hours. The judiciary gets ample time to study the issue and come to a conclusion and that is more reason, why there should be no place for loopholes in the process of delivering justice. If doctors are under the CPA then why can’t the judiciary too be brought under it ”
Often the long time span behind a court verdict is ground for common grouse. The court announced the verdict for the October 2011 Keenan-Reuben murder case in May this year, four years after the case moved to a fast-track court in March 2012. Activist-lawyer Abha Singh believes the Salman Khan case is a classic example of why the judiciary needs to undertake corrective measures. The lawyer, who filed a petition questioning the role of the Mumbai police in Salman Khan’s 2002 hit-and-run case, believes that the time taken by the judiciary to deliver justice needs to be speeded. “I’ve seen a lot of people losing their land and turning paupers because justice was delayed to them. There should be a cap as to the number of years a legal case can stay in court,” Abha says. She adds that the “speaking order”, a document that contains facts and details about the case, is complied to 400-500 pages, which once again proves to be time-consuming. “Compiling the speaking order takes up months together and it delays the process. When the main information doesn’t extend to more than two-three pages, why should there be reams of information ” Having pointed this out, she also adds, “I don’t think it is feasible for the judiciary to come under the CPA.”
Dr Ramesh Ganesan asks Why the Judiciary should also come under CPA (Consumer Protection Act) on the Consumer Resources blog:
In the Salman Khan case the lower court and the high court judge interpreted the situation in contrasting manner and gave verdicts that were poles apart.
What would have happened if a doctor sitting in a government hospital had diagnosed a celebrity as gastritis and another hospital had later diagnosed that patient to be having a myocardial infarction
A judge gets years to decide on a case unlike a doctor who is expected to diagnose and treat everything in the blink of an eye.
Read the whole post: consumerresources.in/2016/05/15/finally-something-for-the-doctors/
I’ve seen a lot of people losing their land and turning paupers because justice was delayed to them. There should be a cap as to the number of years a legal case can stay in court Abha Singh, activist-lawyer
No profession is above people. People aren’t fearful about the law any more because they think that the judiciary can be easily bribed. If the judiciary is under a body like CPA, I think it will help reduce crime rates Dr Alpa Dalal, pulmonologist
