Dr Ramesh Ganesan asked a medico legal question
DO NOT IGNORE.
“DOCTORS VS JUDGES”:
Judiciary should also come under CPA (Consumer Protection Act).
“Every body must READ and SHARE this article.
–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.
–Just imagine what would have happened if a YOUNG doctor sitting in a GOVERNMENT hospital doctor catering to hundreds of patients in a day had diagnosed a celebrity patient presenting with gastric discomfort as GASTRITIS and another hospital had LATER on diagnosed that patient to be having a MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION. I am sure that doctor would have been screwed and jailed.
–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.
–If a doctor making a wrong diagnosis can be prosecuted shouldn’t a judge giving wrong verdicts meet the same fate?
–If hospitals can be sued for not admitting poor patients shouldn’t the courts be prosecuted for having lacs of impending cases?
–Is it not appalling that a judge taking 12 years to give a wrong verdict gets away unhurt and a doctor making one mistake is screwed by our legal system?
–Doctors practice medicine which is more of an art than an exact science whereas law is absolutely 100% manmade, yet doctors are expected to be right on all occasions.
–If doctors and hospitals have a duty towards the society then does the judiciary not have a responsibility towards the socitey.
–If there is so much of hue and cry in media about doctors and hospitals charging huge sums from patients then why do we not ever hear a word on the fee that lawyers like Manu singhvi and Jethmalani charge for their court appearances.
–Government often talks about putting a capping on the fees doctors charge for various procedures but their is no talk of putting a capping on the fee that these lawyers charge to get justice for their clients.
–If health is a citizen’s right then so is justice. Shall we take our minds off worshipping false heroes & think?
***JUDICIARY SHOULD ALSO COME UNDER CPA (CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT)***
Consumer Resources 
On first look, the idea does sound a bit attractive. But it is all wrong.
The courts are being criticized for what is called judicial over reach which is correct. But surprisingly, today all the major decisions, which should be taken by the executive, are taken by the courts – whether IPL should be held in Maharashtra ; whether women should be allowed entry into temples and mosques ; licensing of dance bars; regularizing of illegal buildings; whether the common medical entrance exams should be conducted on all India basis, etc.
The executive have themselves shirked heir responsibility and passed on the buck to the Judiciary to avoid public displeasure on any issue.
People like Kejriwal sling mud right and left and then challenge the constitutional validity of the law of defamation because there is no other escape route.
Consumer Protection Act does not cover issues relating to sovereign functions. Judiciary renders sovereign functions.
Tomorrow someone can argue that the legislatures should be brought under the Consumer Protection Act.
We should not criticize the Judicial system. There are a lot of draw backs and pin pricks. They should be removed and justice made cheaper and faster.
Binoy Gupta
while your points sound valid, as far as i know, and i am not a lawyer just a layman, the higher courts can only decide and overturn a verdict of lower court on a point of law. that is, if they feel that some legal point was not correctly examined. i dont think they go through the trial process again. i may be wrong, you can check again.
best wishes
So far the lower courts are concerned, the first appeal court can go through the trial process – even on points of fact. Otherwise, the first trial court would assume unlimited powers.
So far the Supreme court and the High Courts are concerned, apart from the Writ jurisdiction, they have supervisory powers over all other courts and quasi judicail authorites. They have rules, but they have powers to do any thing to ensure that justice is given.
You can see the peculiar case of Subroto Roy of Sahar who was kept in jail for more than two years, IPL cases and demolition cases.
Once you file a Complaint in the Consumer Forum, you can not approach the civil courts for the same issue. Appeals, etc. have to be filed under the Consumer Protection Act. From the District Consumer Forum to the State Commission and then to the National Commission. In some case from there to the Supreme Court.
But the High Courts can and do interfere in some cases because they have supervisory jurisdiction over all quasi judicial authorities and they step in when there is patent error.
Writs are extra ordinary remedies with unfettered powers…..
Dear sir,
The constitution of India has given right to speech which is practically applicable where the speaker is more influential like politicians and the officers who are licensed by Government’s law, and the other is self styled extremists. All these people do cast a scare in the minds of common people. Thus india has been divided by our constitution makers. We feel sorry for this flaw.
Why at all the time we need to refer the British rulings. Britishers were minority in India. But they wanted to rule this country. To fulfill their mission they did every thing which need to be reconsidered. One big man say any thing any where. But if similarly a small person does the same thing to a big man then there the earth quake to happen. His life will be made miserable.
Thus what I want to say please consider all assumable disparities.
I fully agree to to doctor judge case. None is so big. For such big Dom they are paid. Let’s come out of British customs. They had designed the rules to suite them. But now all are Indians. Every individual have their own contributions for making of this India. Let’s understand this and make a rule to differentiate by way of their negativity and positivity not by their posts or qualifications. Many high level officers/politicians have erred in the past. Now also they don’t hesitate to utter to express their negative authorities in public. Officers intentionally trouble a good worker and recommends for promotion of a flatterer. The good worker has no window to represent this also there is no one from Govt or employer side.
I hope there is some one or more is there to remove this most common and the most uncommon disparities against the good people.
I want to name such good persons in the people who do not raise his voice to accumulate govt money in his account. Nor disturbs any wrong doers also. Has an universal sympathy for all. Tries to feed even unknowns. Keeps his sphere within his family bfor happiness and sorrows. This tolerant man the common man in real terms for whom this India is stable and had been able to sustain the conditions of the present India. These people are really big but as they are not influential nor hold a high Govt post they are just neglected. They are the real heroes.
On the other hand people with high salary need more and more salary. More perks. Out of way money. He requires also others respect. If not he can make others life miserable. Why so. Why not in what is what. These intellectual know that no amount of money can make them happy. Still they try.
Thus I recommend for a fresh evaluation and their circulation and its enactments.