Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Regulate Live Broadcasting Of Medical Surgeries

The Supreme Court on Friday (13.10.2023), issued notice to the Centre and the National Medical Commission in a plea challenging the live demonstration of medical surgeries to trainee doctors, professionals, and medical conferences. The PIL was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.

Arguments in the Court

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, raised a series of concerns regarding live surgery demonstrations. He highlighted the fact that these surgeries were conducted with an audience of up to 800 individuals in medical conferences, who actively participated by asking questions to the surgeon while the procedure is ongoing.

In response to Sankarnarayanan's concerns, CJI Chandrachud made an interesting analogy by asking, "Like an IPL match?" Sankarnarayanan affirmed, explaining that many patients were not adequately informed about the procedure. Patients from certain economically backward sections of the society, as per Sankaranarayanan, were often told that a renowned 'foreign surgeon' would perform the surgery, and they readily agree. He also submitted that the practice was banned in several other countries.

Sankarnarayan further pointed out that in some cases, the surgeon even commented on the medical equipment and techniques used during the surgery, creating potential distractions. This, he argued, endangered the patients and raised serious ethical and legal questions.

While at the outset, CJI DY Chandrachud did remark that the live broadcasting was done for "educational purposes", upon hearing the arguments, he agreed to issue notice in the matter.

Issues Raised in the Petition

The plea argues that Live Surgery Broadcasts (LSB), particularly by organizations like the All India Ophthalmological Society, pose significant challenges to informed consent. It suggests that patients from lower economic strata agree for LBS as they are provided surgery waivers for live surgeries and do not realise that the surgeons' attention may be divided when they know they are being broadcasted live, potentially putting patients at risk.

The plea cites a specific case from 2015, where a live surgery broadcast conducted by a leading hospital in the national capital of Delhi resulted in the death of a patient. Additionally, the petitioners claim that advertising and sponsorship are the primary motivations behind such live procedures, which are then broadcasted at medical conferences. This, they argue, compromises the purity of medical education and patient safety.

The petitioners have sought directions for the National Medical Commission (NMC) to appoint a committee that will regularly monitor live surgery broadcasts and establish comprehensive guidelines.

The Supreme Court issued a notice, returnable in three weeks, and granted liberty to serve the central agencies. 

Case Title: Rahil Chaudhary v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1141/2023 PIL-W