'Serious Cause' : Supreme Court On PIL Against Live Broadcasting Of Medical Surgeries

While hearing a public interest litigation challenging live demonstration of medical surgeries to trainee doctors/professionals and in medical conferences, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed that the case pertains to a serious cause as well as state policy, and therefore, even if the petitioners' locus is suspect, it would not refrain from dealing with the issue.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard submissions briefly, but had to adjourn the matter as none was present on behalf of the Union of India and the National Medical Commission. Deeming representation of the two necessary, the bench directed that the order be communicated by the Registry to the Standing Counsel for NMC and to the Attorney General's office.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for petitioners, submitted that only within the last month, 38 live medical operations were conducted. Perusing the record, Justice Kant remarked, "This has very serious impact…and pertains to state policy".

When a counsel appearing for the respondents sought to contest the petitioners' locus to file the PIL, the judge cut him short, saying, "for serious cause, we don't care about the locus".

One Mr Rajiv Joshi (a doctor and lawyer from Pune) appeared on behalf of the Medico Legal Society of India, seeking intervention in the matter. Allowing its application, the Court permitted the Society to assist.

It is worthwhile to mention that a CJI DY Chandrachud-led bench issued notice on the PIL in October, 2023. On this occasion, Sankaranarayanan highlighted that live 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 was ongoing. It was also submitted that the practice was banned in several other countries.

Issues raised in the petition

The petitioners argue 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 realize that the surgeons' attention may be divided when they know they are being broadcasted live, potentially putting patients at risk.

The petition 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, it claims that advertising and sponsorship are the primary motivations behind live procedures, which are then broadcasted at medical conferences. This, it is argued, compromises the purity of medical education and patient safety.

The petitioners seek directions for the NMC to appoint a committee that will regularly monitor live surgery broadcasts and establish comprehensive guidelines.

Case Title: RAHIL CHAUDHARY AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1141/2023