The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking a mandate for medical professionals to inform patients about all possible risks and side effects associated with prescribed medications.
The plea challenged the Delhi High Court’s May 15 order, which had rejected the petition, calling the demand impractical.
The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, expressed concerns about the feasibility of such a requirement. “It is not practical,” the bench remarked. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioner Jacob Vadakkanchery, argued that the issue was significant, questioning whether doctors should be obligated to inform patients about potential side effects when prescribing drugs.
Bhushan contended that providing such information could help avoid medical negligence cases under the Consumer Protection Act. He suggested that doctors could use a printed proforma listing possible side effects, making the process more manageable.
However, the bench noted that doctors prescribe different medications to different patients, and it might not be feasible for general practitioners to cater to more than 10-15 patients under such a system.
The petitioner also referenced the World Health Organization’s concerns about patient harm due to incorrect prescriptions, but the bench remained unconvinced. The judges also commented on the medical profession’s dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling, which had brought doctors under the Consumer Protection Act’s ambit.
The petition asked the court to direct the Centre and the National Medical Commission to require all medical professionals in India to provide patients with additional written information, in the regional language, about the potential risks and side effects of prescribed drugs.
Vadakkanchery argued that this would empower patients to make informed decisions about whether to take the prescribed medicine.
However, the High Court had already dismissed this request, pointing out that there was no gap in existing regulations. It noted that the manufacturer and pharmacist already provide sufficient information through product inserts.
Court concluded that it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to impose such a requirement, stating that the legislature had already tasked manufacturers and pharmacists with this responsibility.
The court, agreeing with the High Court’s reasoning, dismissed the petition, emphasizing that there was no legal vacuum that warranted the requested action.
