The Supreme Court rejects a request to require doctors to inform patients about all drug risks and side effects.
The Supreme Court today rejected a request to require medical professionals to inform patients about all potential risks and side effects of prescribed medications. The court was reviewing a challenge to a May 15 decision by the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed the petition. “It is not practical,” stated a panel of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioner Jacob Vadakkanchery, argued that the issue is significant, questioning whether doctors should be required to disclose possible side effects of the medications they prescribe. The judges noted that if this requirement were enforced, a general practitioner might only be able to see 10 to 15 patients, potentially leading to cases under the Consumer Protection Act.
Bhushan claimed this approach could help prevent consumer protection lawsuits related to medical negligence, suggesting that doctors could use a printed form listing possible side effects. The judges pointed out that doctors often prescribe different medications to various patients. Bhushan also mentioned that the World Health Organization (WHO) has highlighted the risks to patients from incorrect prescriptions.
The judges acknowledged that doctors are dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, which included the medical field under the Consumer Protection Act. “Sorry,” the judges said while dismissing the request. The High Court petition had sought to direct the Centre and the National Medical Commission to require all medical professionals in the country to provide patients with a slip in their local language detailing the risks and side effects of prescribed drugs.
The petitioner argued that patients should have the right to make informed decisions and that doctors must explain the side effects of prescribed medications. They told the high court that if patients know the side effects of a drug, they can decide whether to take it. The High Court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the information provided by the manufacturer in the drug’s insert given by the pharmacist. The court stated that since the law requires manufacturers and pharmacists to provide this information, there is no reason to issue the requested directions, as it would be like creating new laws. The court dismissed the plea, stating that the public interest litigation (PIL) acknowledged that there was no lack of information, so the requested directions could not be granted.
