to
health which came before
commission
(PSHRC)
Page(s)
Research Scheme ……………………………………………………….……………………….1
Research Methodology …………………………………………………………………………..2
1. Concept of Human Rights and Human Rights Commission ………………………………..3-6
2. Right to Health as Human Rights ……………………………………………………………7-8
3. Case Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………9-22
3.1 Private doctor/institution
3.2 Suo Motu action/press report
3.3 Medical Negligence by Government Doctor’s
3.4 Miscellaneous
4. Conclusion and Suggestions ………………………………………………………………23-24
The project is divided into 4 main parts.
The first part deals with the concept of Human Rights-a background to the formation of laws dealing with Human Rights. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 has been studied in considerable details and various lacunae in the Act have been pointed out.
The second part deals with the Right to Health. This part stresses on the importance of this right and analyses the reasons as to why it constitutes a basic and fundamental Human Rights.
The third part deals with the specific case analysis that we have done of 50 cases dealing with Human Rights violations falling within the ambit of Rights to Health. The 50 cases that we have analyzed were complaints before the Punjab Human Rights Commission. These 50 cases have been analyzed under 4 heads-:
1. Private Doctors/Institutions
2. Suo Motu action under Press Reports
3. Medical Negligence by Govt. Authorities
4. Miscellaneous
We have studied cases falling within each of these heads separately and a comprehensive analysis has been done at the end of each of the sub-heads.
The fourth part deals with our conclusion based on the analysis of the cases. We have also incorporated a few suggestions that might be helpful in improving the current state of affairs.
The research was mainly doctrinal in nature. The cases from the record room of Punjab Human Rights Commission were extensively studied and the library was also used throughout the research.
We started our project by getting an overview of the concept of Human Rights. We were given lectures, for the first three days (5th – 7th December), on what Human Rights are all about and functioning of the Commission by Hon’ble member of the Commission, Justice Mr. R L Anand (Retd). He explained to us the nuances of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 in great detail along with his practical experiences that added a lot to our knowledge. These lectures were really important and enabled us to get a proper understanding of Human Rights and how the Commission works before embarking on to make our project.
We met secretary of the Commission on the fourth day (8th December). He spoke to us about a relatively unexplored aspect of Human Rights – The Right to Health. He explained to us the problem faced by the Commission while dealing with cases relating to Private Doctors/Institutions. He expressed the inability of the Commission to deal with such cases because of jurisdictional limitations that restrict the Commission from instituting proceedings against persons who are not public servants. We were assigned a project related to this very issue. The Commission to improve the situation assigned us the task of analyzing 50 cases that had come before the Commission and prepare a report in one week along with a comprehensive analysis and possible remedial steps that can be taken.
We then went through a list of 324 cases from a register that contained the gist of all the cases/complaints that came before PHRC regarding the issue of Health. We selected a total of 50 cases which we thought were the most important. We studied these cases from the record of the Commission for the next 4 days (9th, 12th, 13th, 14th December). After studying the cases in detail, we proceeded to make the final report in the last 2 days (15th – 16th December) and submitted the final report to the Commission on 16th of December.
CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION
Human rights are those basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity. To violate someone’s human rights is to treat that person as though she or he were not human being. These rights are the basic entitlement accorded to every human being. The human rights include the right to health, education, shelter, employment, property, food, freedom of expression and movement. These rights are generally those rights which were earlier called natural rights. These all components of human rights have been summarized by Justice AS Anand in the words,
“Human
rights are those rights which inhere in every human being by virtue of being a
member of the human family. These are nothing but what had been traditionally
known as ‘natural rights’- rights bestowed upon human being by nature. Human
Rights are based on mankind’s increasing demand for a decent civilized life in
which the inherent dignity of each human being is well recognised and
protected. Human Rights are fundamental to our very existence without which
were cannot live as human being.”
These rights could also be seen in the Magna Carta (1215) and also American (1776) and French Revolution (Declaration of the Rights of the Man and Citizen) and after the W WII these rights were given prime importance and on 10th December 1948 the UN general assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has since then be the source of international human rights law and has served as a model for the international treaties and conventions. 10th December is since then celebrated as Human Rights day,.
In
Despite of the legal and constitutional safeguards, human rights of people are still being violated and complaints of deprivation and infractions of human rights continue to be voiced. A large number of cases of human rights violation are pending in the courts and courts because of large number of pending cases is not been able to do justice to these cases.. Hence for the better Protection of Human rights of the people government through the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 created National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commission and also Human Rights Courts but still now no Human Rights Courts has been created. This can be seen from the preamble of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which reads as:
“ That the Bill to provide for the constitution of a National
Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in states and Human
Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and with matter
connected therewith or incidental thereto be taken into consideration.”
Till now National and State Human Rights Commissions have played an important role in the function assigned to them under the Act. They have taken tough and independent stances on several occasions and have played an important role in protecting the Human Rights of the people. But we feel that the powers of the commission are very less under the Act as the commission is only a fact finding body with powers to conduct inquiry into complaints of violation of human rights. Here we would like to point out a few flaws in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which have prevented the commission in the effective protection of human rights of people.
Firstly if we see the Act, the commission has no power of punishing the persons who have violated the human rights of other people but can give only recommendations to the govt. on finding that the person was really at fault. Commission under sec. 18, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 can give following recommendations:
1. It may recommend to the concerned govt. or authority the initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other action as the commission may deem fit against the concerned persons.
2. Approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as the court may deem necessary.
3. Recommend to the concerned Government or authority for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family.
Secondly it can take action on a complaint only if the complaint is against a public servant (Sec. 12), this limitation ties the hand of the commission in handling complaints of human rights violation of private individual as commission cannot give recommendations or initiate inquiry against private person or persons.
Thirdly under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 a limitation of one year has been placed on the entertainment of the complaint. This limitation is unreasonable as one year is a very short period as complainant will first sort refuge of the law and only after facing disappointment from them will come to any other forum for the protection of his human rights and also it may be that he comes to know about this commission later and thinks of filling the complaint then but this will not be fruitful as his complaint will not be entertained owing to this technicality. According to us a limitation of 3 years will be more reasonable. Section 36(2), the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 lays down this limitation, it reads as:
36(2):” The commission or the state commission shall not inquire into any matter after expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed”
Lastly under section 21, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 it is not mandatory on the state government to establish respective State Human Rights Commission as against Section 3, the Protection of Human Rights Act which makes the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission mandatory. This can be seen as till now only 13 State Human Rights Commission has been established. But it should not be left to the govt. to decide whether there has to be a human right commission or not and this should be mandatory on the state govt. to establish State human rights Commission for the better protection of human rights of people and providing them quick justice.
It is high time that govt. bring about amendments in the Protection of Human Rights Act keeping in mind above stated flaws in the present Act. It is necessary for the government to make such an act a strong one as it will be instrumental in protecting more effectively the human rights of people. They also should implement the recommendations of the commission more often. People should also start respecting and honouring the human rights of others. People should start understanding that their rights end where other person right begin hence people should start respecting the importance of other person human rights as in the words of Justice NC Jain, chairperson Punjab State Human Rights Commission:
“There is no better religion than protection of human rights of a human being by a human being. There is no better service to mankind that respecting the human rights of a human being”
“ The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being………”
---The WHO Constitution
Every human being has the human right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, without discrimination of any kind. Enjoyment of the right to health is vital to all aspects of a person’s life and well being, and is crucial to the realization of many other fundamental human rights and freedoms as good health is instrumental in the enjoyment of other rights guaranteed to a person.
Till now health has been considered as a blessing more than a right but there is a need people realize the importance of this very important right and start fighting for this right. In the words of Kofi Annan, Secretary, United Nations.
“It is my aspiration that health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but a human right to be fought for”
The” right to health” extends to all things which promote health and well-being and prevent illness and disease, not just access to medical care. This includes, among many others, the right to education, food and shelter; to freedom from discrimination and persecution; to information; and to the benefits of science.
Human right relating to health are set out in basic human right treaties and include:
The right to health is a very important issue and the government shall take every effort to provide a healthy atmosphere to its citizen and raise standard of living. These rights can be seen in the Constitution of India under chapter 3 and chapter 4, fundamental rights and Directive rights of State policy respectively
“Everyone has
the right to a standard of living adequate for… health and well-being of
himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and the
right to security in the event of … sickness, disability… Motherhood and
childhood are entitled to special care and assistance…..”
-- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25
CHAPTER-3
CASE ANALYSIS
3.1 PRIVATE DOCTOR/INSTITUTION
Introduction:
Medicine is considered to be a noble profession. Doctors are often compared with God in the sense that they also hold the power to give a new life to the patient. It is because of this control of the doctor over the patients’ life that makes it necessary to impose certain regulations on their practice. A doctor irrespective of the fact whether he is a government doctor or runs an independent clinic, is responsible for his actions vis-à-vis the patients as he has a duty of care towards every patient that he attends to. This duty of care has been imposed by law and encompasses within its ambit all kinds of medical practitioners.
In spite of the fact that Law imposes a similar Duty of Care and Standard of Care on both government doctors and private practitioners, the powers of the Human Rights Commission is limited with regards to Private Medical Practitioners. According to the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 contained in section 12(a), the commission has right to institute proceedings and recommend action only against doctors working in government establishments. This is a lacuna in the law which ties the hands of the commission and stops it from taking any action against defaulting private doctors.
We did a detailed case study of cases where complaint has been filed against negligent private doctors. We have examined all these cases and have analysed the nature of the complaints, inadequacy of the Act that prevents Commission from taking effective action and the steps taken by the Commission in spite of the limitations..
We analysed 15 cases which came to the commission dealing with complaints against private doctors/institutions. The complaints ranged from complaints of medical, negligence, complaints against quack doctors and even complaints of mistreatment by doctors. Important cases among them have been studied in detail below.
Case
Study:
In a case we analysed a complaint was filed against a doctor of
In another case a complaint was filed against a private doctor. It was alleged that the doctor was grossly negligent as he injected a wrong injection due to which the wife of the complainant was paralysed and due to which his daughter dies of shock. Commission didn’t take cognizance of the matter as the complaint was against a private doctor. Still a copy has been forwarded to the health department if they want to take any action at their own level.
In another similar complaint it was alleged by the complainant that her wife died because of the negligence of the medical staff of the doctor Anil Baghi of Ferozepur. But again commission didn’t take cognizance of the matter as it was against a private doctor though commission sent a copy of the complaint to the SSP, Ferozepur and recommended him to take appropriate action as per law at his own end.
A complaint was filed against
In a complaint filed by a Mehr Chand of Hoshiarpur District a quack doctor it was requested that steps shall be taken against this quack doctor by the Commission as due to him life of many citizens is at risk. Commission didn’t take cognizance of the complaint as it was against a private doctor. Through I feel issue of quack doctors is a very serious issue as they hold life of many people at risk and it also shows the inadequacy of the government in stopping fake doctors to practice and hence I strongly feel that the commission should ask the government regarding the steps taken by the government in this regard.
In another similar complaint allegations were levied against a Dr. Surjeet Ram of Bhatinda that he doesn’t have a degree and prescribe wrong medicine. Even thohgh it was a complaint against a private doctor Commission tool cognizance of the matter and sought a report from SSP, Bathinda. In reply SSP sent an inquiry report and said that the complaint filed by the complainant is false. Commission on being satisfied by the report closed the matter, we feel that similar actions should be more often taken by the Commission in order to protect the Human Rights of the citizens.
In another complaint which was filed by Arvind Singh it was alleged that his wife died because of the negligence of Dr. Gurinder Singh of Gurinder Nursing Home. Commission sought report from State Govt. taking cognizance of the matter in spite of the fact that the complaint was against a private doctor. A report was sent than complainant no more want to continue the complaint as he has entered into a compromise with the doctor and on not receiving the rejoinder or the objection on this report from the complainant commission closed the matter.
In this complaint it was alleged by the complainant that his sister
died because of the negligence of the staff of one Cheema hospital,
In another complaint serious allegations were levied against a Munish clinic and medical store, it was alleged that they do not have licence and sell banned and intoxicating drugs and also conducts foetus test which have been banned under PNDT Act 1994. commission took no cognizance of the matter as it is against a private institution though it forwarded the complaint to the Director, Health and Family welfare if they want to take any action at their own level.
In another complaint a woman alleged that doctors of nursing home in Jatipur prescribed her wrong medicine and also forcibly terminated her 2.5 months pregnancy and also took Rs. 7500/- in lieu of it and requested the commission that some action should be taken against the nursing home. Commission didn’t took cognizance of the matter as it was a case against a private institution though it send a copy to SSP, Majitha to look into the matter at its own level and dismissed the appeal in limine.
Analysis:
On studying these cases we feel that the jurisdiction of the commission is limited and in cannot entertain complaints against private individual. This is a big lacuna in the law and prevents the commission in effective protection of human rights of the people. In spite of this limitation commission has came forward and has taken cognizance of the matter in many complaints against private persons looking at the gravity of the complaint and has sought for the report from the concerned authority regarding it and in other cases have asked the concerned authorities to look into the matter at their own level. These steps really show the sincerity of the commission towards at their own level. These steps really show the sincerely of the commission towards their ultimate aim that is the protection of human rights of people.
3.2
SUO-MOTU ACTION/PRESS REPORT
Introduction:
The role of the media is pivotal in generating public opinion. Responsibility reporting by the media ensures that the citizens are informed which is crucial for the proper functioning of the democracy. The media has a responsibility towards the society to point out and draw attention towards any injustice, wrong or malpractice going on the society. The media has a role to play as a watchdog of the activities of the government.
The media must take utmost care to ensure that the news reports emanating through its medium are properly checked and verified. Any wrong information published will bring the concerned government agency disrepute and unnecessary scrutiny by public and the credibility of the media will also suffer.
The functions of the commission as regards suo motu action have been laid down in Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which states that:
12 (a) inquire suo motu or on petition presented to it by a victim
or any person on his behalf, into complaint of;
(i)
violation of Human Rights or Abetment thereof or.
(ii) negligence in prevention of such violation, by a public servant
This provision enables the Commission to act by itself and inquire into any matter of Human Rights violations even without receiving any complaint by an individual. The commission takes suo motu cognizance in many cases whenever it comes across a news report in the media about any alleged violation of Human Rights by any government agency. After discussion with one member of PHRC, we came to know that the Law Wing of PHRC goes through all the newspapers daily and any instances of Human Rights violations are brought to the notice of all the members of the Commission. If members are satisfied with the news item that this is a fit case for taking cognizance, it is done suo motu under section 12(a) and a complaint is filed upon which further action is taken.
Case
Study:
A news item published in Hindustan Times
reported about a
A newspaper reportpublished in the Tribune on 25th March, 2004 reported that patients visiting the Govt. Tuberculosis and Chest diseases hospital in Patiala are being made to pay for expensive medicines even when cheaper alternatives are available in the market and cited examples to substantiate the claim e.g. a tablet aleipro is being sold in the Red Cross shop for 5.80 per tablet and another tablet zoxon with similar salts is being sold in the market for 2.90. The commission has taken suo motu cognizance in the matter and asked for a report from Director, Health and Family Welfare. In its report, the government defended the hospital staff by stating that medicines are being sold at discount prices and some medicines are even being distributed for free for TB patients. The commission has accepted the report and closed the matter.
In our view, the commission did not appreciate the facts stated in the news report. The news report acknowledges that the Red Cross shop sells medicines at a discount rate o f25% but these medicines are still more expensive than medicines that have similar salts and are available in the open market.
A news report appeared in Hindustan Times that a HIV +ve lady was thrown out of a hospital immediately after her delivery when it became known to the hospital authorities that she is HIV Positive. The commission through its full bench decided not to take cognizance into the matter as the complaint was against a private hospital. The members also considered Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and observed that the word “Public Servant” applies to both clauses (a) and (b) of section 12(1).
There was a news item” Blood Machine Gathers dust” in Indian Express regarding how a modern machine is not being utilized which can be really helpful in treating Dengue patients. It further added that as a large number of people are suffering from Dengue, the non-functioning of the machine shows the non-sincere effort of the Administration. The Commission has taken suo motu cognizance into the mater and asked for a report from the Director, Health and Family Welfare and also from Civil Surgeon, Bathinda and also passed an interim direction that the machine should be installed at the earliest. In this report, it was stated that due to non-issuance of licence, the unit can not be brought into operation. The Commission recommended to the government that the machine should be functional by the next hearing. The machine was functional by the next date and the Commission recommended installing more such machines in view of spreading Dengue Fever.
A news report was published in The Times
of India – “one ambulance for 3 lakh people”. The Commission took suo motu
cognizance into the matter and sought a report from the Department of Health
about the number of ambulances provided by the government for every Distt/civil
hospital and the facilities available in the Ambulance. The Commission Received a report from all the district/civil Hospital and
the facilities available in the Ambulance. The Commission received a report
from all the districts of
Analysis:
On studying case under this head we feel that the commission has been able to correct many things even without receiving any complaint and acting on its own. We feel that commission has made full use of its power to act Suo motu. Here was also saw that the govt. also supported the commission and implemented almost all the recommendation given by them. Here we would also like to say that the media has also played an important role in drawing the attention of the commission towards these problems but there is a need that media self disciplines itself.
3.3
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE BY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES
Introduction:
There is an implied undertaking by the members of
medical profession that he would use a fair, reasonable and competent degree of
skill. Generally medical negligence may be defined as
‘failure to show a reasonable amount of care which an ordinary sensible doctor might be expected to show in the similar circumstances’
As held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Lakshman B.Joshi v
Dr. Trimbak B. Godbole, a doctor when consulted by a patient owes him certain
duties:
(1)
A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case
(2)
A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give
(3)
A duty of care in administering the treatment
A breach of duty
gives a cause of action against the doctor both under civil and criminal law of
negligence. In case of civil negligence action for damages may lie either in (1) law of torts (2) Consumer protection Act,
1986. The doctor may be liable to pay compensation to the victim, if found
negligent in performance of his duty. In case of criminal negligence, a doctor
may be made liable for:
(1) Causing death by rash and negligent act under
section 304-A, IPC.
(2) Causing grievous hurt endangering life under
section 338, IPC.
(3) Causing hurt endangering life under section 337,
IPC.
The Commission has a power to entertain only complaints against government doctors as discussed in detail earlier also and on finding them guilty can recommend interim compensation to the victim which they have recommended in many cases and also give other recommendation as specified under section 18, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Under this head we have analyzed 15 cases which deals with various cases of medical negligence by the government doctors which have threatened the life of many people. Important cases among them have been analyzed in detail below.
Case study:
In
a complaint it was alleged by the complainant that his wife died due to medical
negligence and malafide advice of the doctor, civil hospital Sangrur which he
gave because his demand for 6000/- was not satisfied. Commission took
cognizance of the matter and asked for a report from the SSP, Sangrur. In the
report SSP Sangrur has claimed that the complaint is false as it has not been
substantiated. Commission didn’t take further action because of
non-prosecution.
In the second complaint it was alleged that Dist
Health Officer, Jallandhar has been negligent in checking the practice of
adulteration of local shops which has been a health menace. The complainant has
substantiated his claim by providing supporting Newspaper article published in
Dainik Jagran. Commission tool cognizance of the matter and asked for a report
from Director Health Services. DHS has claimed that complaint is false.
Commission thus had to dispose of the matter because there was no response from
the complaint in spite of giving him two chances.
In this case complainant filed allegation against
doctor Balbir Singh posted at
There was a complaint against a govt doctor Ramesh
Goel, Sangrur that because of his negligence an unborn child died. Commission
took no action in this case saying that as it is restricted u/s 12 though a
copy was forwarded to SSP, Sangrur. While due respect according to us it was a
fit case to take cognizance as there was no bar u/s 12 as it was a complaint
against public servant and we didn’t understood why no cognizance was taken.
A complaint was filed against the civil doctor, Jalandhar that he was grossly negligent in performing her abortion because of which many complications arose which had to be attended by a private doctor. Commission took cognizance of the
matter and ask for a report from Director, Family Welfare Department. The complaint was found to be false as the complainant was checked by Dr. Nagpal who summarised that there was no particles left by the doctor in the uterus during operation as alleged by the complainant and pain after such operation is normal. Commission on being satisfied by the report disposed of the case.
A complaint was filed against the doctor of
A complaint was filed by Forum for Common Cause. It demanded that
govt should organize Medical camps for Bone Density tests, Hepatitis-B and Eye
camps. It alleged that private nursing homes conduct camps for inserting
hepatitis injections. They are sub-standard or expired injections. In Eye camps
held by many private hospitals many people loses their eye-sight due to
doctor’s negligence. Commission took cognizance and sought for a report from
Secretary Health and DHO’s in this report, Civil surgeon, Fatehgarh Sahib
conceded that even reputed NGO’s like Lions club etc,. need
to take prior permission of
A compliant was filed by Gurmit Kaur w/o Jagdish Singh of Faridkot that her husband died because of the negligence of government doctor. Commission took cognizance and sought for a report from the SSP, Faridkot and a report was send by him stating that her husband died of low BP as he was a patient of BP and not because of doctor’s negligence. Gurmit Kaur was given two chances of registering an objection but as commission received no such objection it closed the matter believing the police report.
Analysis:
Under this head we saw that a lot of false complaints were filed by the persons just in order to harass the government authorities. Here we also saw that commission’s recommendations were effectively implemented by the govt there is a need for the people to understand the importance of Human Rights and should also become responsible and should refrain from filling false complaint just in order to harass other or even realizing money from them in fear of this. Here we would also like to say that commission should more often inquire into the matter itself and should not believe in the report submitted as the report is mostly biased in favour of government authorities.
3.4 MISCELLANEOUS
Introduction:
Other cases which we came through our research dealt with cases like where commission didn’t took cognizance as there was no violation of human rights as defined under section 2(d) of the Prevention of Human Rights Act, 1993. Section 2(d) of the Prevention of Human Rights Act, 1993 states that
2(d) “Human Rights’
means that rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the
individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International
covenants and enforceable by courts of
Other cases dealt with the inefficiency of the municipal corporation in maintaining proper standard of the water, sanitary and also controlling pollution because of which people face various health hazards.
Case
Study and Analysis:
In the first case a complaint was filed against the chief medical officer and SHO and drug inspector that they are not taking appropriate action against the illegal practice of RMP (registered medical practitioner) doctor who has no valid degree. According to him district authorities are legally bound to check this illegal practice of RMP as per law. No cognizance was taken in this matter as according to the hon’ble member no case of human right under Sec. 2(d) is made out. We would like to say here that according to us a fit case of human right is made out in this case as under section 12(a) of the prevention of Human Rights Act, 1993 any person can file a complaint . Doctors with fake or no degrees if not checked than it will lead to a great risk on the life and liberty of the people hence with due respect to the commission we fell that it was a fit case to take cognizance.
In the second case a complaint was filed
by Forum for Common Cause that portable drinking water is not available for
drinking in schools run by state of
In another complaint filed by an
advocate on behalf of the residents of Ludhiana against mal-functioning of the
top brass of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana due to which all large number of
people suffered injuries, miseries and death. Commission took cognizance and
called for a report in this connection from the Director, Health Services,
In another complaint a letter was filed by a person that doctors who have done their degree from Russia should not be required to give an entrance test to practice in India as it is a big injustice to them. Commission sought a report from Health and Family welfare Department Punjab. Report said that it is a Centre subject and not a State subject so commission advised to the complainant to request to Centre govt.
In one case a person alleged that his human right was violated by a person but the police did not register a case against him but this complaint was filed after 3 years from the incident. Commission did not take cognizance of the matter as his complaint was time barred under Section 36(2) which states that:
36(2): “the commission or the state commission shall
not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which
the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been
committed”
After completing our analysis of 50 cases, we observed that the Commission has its hands tied while dealing with Human Rights Violations by private doctors. We feel that in spite of this limitation commission has done a commendable job in protecting human rights of people. In many cases commission have acted suo motu on a news item and have sought report from the Government regarding the same. In most cases the news report was found to be true and the commission was able to protect the human rights of the people by giving the recommendation which was followed by government in almost all cases. But still here we feel that news paper should try in self-disciplining themselves as they have a moral duty towards the society and they should more concentrate on this rather then selling their newspaper and making their newspaper spicy and in few cases by providing false news. Health is an important human right of each individual as good health is essential for the enjoyment of other human right i.e. life, liberty, dignity etc. We feel that commission should play a more important role in this regard as protection of this right is essential in protecting human rights of the people.
We would like to give a few suggestions that can be instrumental in protecting human rights of the people:
1. Even in the case of complaints against private doctor/ Institutions, the Commission should recommend action more often, especially when the complaint of a grave nature that threats imminent violation ofHumanRights.
2. There should be an enactment by the Government to regulate the unrestricted practices of private medical practitioners who often have no degrees or fake degrees and play havoc with the Life and Dignity of innocent people
3. The press and media have a responsibility towards the society and it must prioritize news that has a bearing on the life of public at large. The media needs to self-discipline itself.
4. The commission should investigate into complaints on its own with the help of its Investigation Wing more often as the reports submitted by the government is often biased.
5. Municipal Corporation should take care that drinking water is fit to drink as most of the diseases spread through water and also of the sanitation and pollution, these steps will help in improving the standard of health of people.
6. The commission must be given more powers so as to enable them to hand out stern punishment to people who violate others’ Human Rights irrespective of the fact whether they are public servants or not.