The jurisprudential principle “stare decisis” is based on a Latin expression which means to adhere to the decisions rendered; maintain precedents; maintain the positions previously established by the higher courts. One of the important characteristics of a good law is that the law must be determined, clear and unambiguous, with the flexibility to refer to different situations, facts and circumstances, and that justice is done in accordance with the law. The Latin maxim “Stare decisis, et non quieta movere” means that it is better to stick to decisions and not disturb restful questions. The aim is to avoid confusion in the minds of citizens about what the law of the land is. As stated in Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. In addition, the Constitution of India provides that the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts of the States are the courts of registration. As for the jurisprudence of the National Commission and the State Commission, they are followed by lower courts as a binding precedent, although there is no specific provision in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is generally accepted that a point of law governed by a decision of a higher authority cannot be derogated from. The change of judge does not affect the permanent legal situation. A new judge should not enact a new law, but retain and explain the old one. While this appears to limit the flexibility of new judges in interpreting the law when there is a legal position established by its predecessor, this restriction is essentially removed when the law is amended. There is much criticism that consumer forums have not scrupulously followed the principle of higher-level forums, i.e.
state state commissions and the National Commission, and that higher forums have often not maintained the fixed positions established by their predecessors. The decisions of the National Commission and the State Commissions are communicated. However, not all of these decisions may be uniform. In addition, there may be conflicting decisions of various state and national commissions. While some legal experts have called for an explicit provision to this effect, others believe that the principle followed with respect to the Supreme Court and Supreme Courts (since an appeal to the Supreme Court is foreseen, high courts are generally not supposed to consider consumer-related injunctions, although the law does not contain such a prohibition), In general, can also be followed with regard to the decisions of the State and the national commissions subject to the law. Interpretations, if any, of the high courts and the final legal status as determined by the Supreme Court. Examples of patients` rights in everyday language are listed below. Some rights are influenced by only one of the principles discussed above, some rights are influenced by several principles, and others are influenced by other ethical principles. Some organizations use their own patient rights statements to inform patients of their rights and/or add rights that are not established by law.
The term “bill”, when used officially, refers to a document containing language that Parliament evaluates for the merits of a law. However, when used informally, the term “Bill of Rights” may refer to any Bill of Rights (usually published in the form of a list). As an example of a current Patients` Bill of Rights, Indiana University`s Patients` Bill of Rights includes the following patient rights: In this regard, it should be recalled that in the case of State of Haryana and Ors v. Smt. Santra, I (2000) CPJ 53 (SC) (by S. Saghir Ahmad and D.P.Wadhwa, JJ.), the Supreme Court granted the claim for compensation in a request for special leave if the incomplete sterilization (family planning operation) was found to be defective in service. Smt Santra underwent family planning surgery that involved only the right fallopian tube, and the left fallopian tube was not affected, indicating that complete sterilization was not performed. A poor worker who already had many children and had opted for sterilization became pregnant and eventually gave birth to a girl despite an obviously failed sterilization. The healthcare industry is constantly evolving as legislators, payers, patients and other stakeholders adapt to new realities. In health systems, the governance, risk and compliance (GRC) function is not just the task of following the law.
Providers and support staff also need to understand the changing legal landscape. Intuitively, the principles seem to be of obvious value and clear application in the current use of health ethics. For example, the idea that the doctor should not “harm” any patient is convincing to most people. Or the idea that the physician should develop a plan of care that offers the patient the greatest “advantage” over other competing alternatives seems both rational and obvious. In addition, it is now generally accepted that the patient must have the opportunity to make an informed decision about their care before implementing the medical care plan. Finally, medical services should be distributed equitably so that people with similar needs and circumstances are treated fairly, an important concept given the scarcity of resources such as solid organs, bone marrow, diagnostics, procedures and expensive medications. Whatever resources are available, a growing awareness requires Governments to take immediate action within their means to realize these rights. Regardless of resource capacity, the elimination of discrimination and the improvement of legal systems must be implemented with immediate effect. The claim for damages was based on the principle that a person who has committed civil offences must pay damages to the injured party. The Supreme Court ruled that “maintenance” would obviously include the provision of food, clothing, shelter, children`s education, and medical care or treatment.
The maintenance obligation is not only of a legal nature, but also of a personal nature in that it arises from the mere existence of the relationship between a parent and the child. The right to damages, on the other hand, is based on the principle that, if a person has committed torts, he or she must pay damages to the injured party. Complementary to charity, non-malignancy aims to ensure that a patient does not feel worse (physically, emotionally or otherwise) after treatment than before. Non-malevolence goes back to the medical writings of the early Egyptians, as already cited. The Hippocratic Oath lists specific acts of non-malevolence, including euthanasia, abortion, attempting by the professional to engage in proceedings outside his or her area of expertise, theft of property, sexual advances, and invasion of privacy. The question of whether a treatment plan is malignant or not extends to all types of treatments, including medications, physical manipulations, and invasive procedures. John Rawls (1999) and others argue that many of the inequalities we experience are the result of a “natural lottery” or “social lottery” for which the individual concerned is not responsible. One of the most controversial issues in modern healthcare is the question “Who has the right to health care?” Or, in other words, perhaps we as a society want to be caring and just and provide an adequate minimum level of health care to all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. Medicaid is also a program designed to help fund health care for people on the poverty line.
In times of recession, however, thousands of families below the poverty line were removed from Medicaid roles to cut costs. The principle of equity is a strong motivation to reform our health system so that the needs of the entire population are taken into account. The requirements of the principle of justice must apply at the bedside, but also systemically in societal laws and policies that govern a population`s access to health care. Much remains to be done in this area. Autonomy (literally “autonomy”) refers to the ability to live according to one`s own reasons and motives. When it comes to the autonomy of ordinary citizens, Western society has changed dramatically over the past 350 years. Before the Enlightenment, most people lived under the rule of a monarch or similar authority. Early Enlightenment philosophers (e.g., Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) championed what is now called the social contract theory. It is the view that people`s moral and political obligations should depend on agreement on the rules that will apply in their respective societies. The hospital is responsible for any false claims made by the consultants. In the case of Ms.
Neha Kumari and Anr.