Despite being celebrated as lifesavers, doctors frequently find themselves susceptible to physical and verbal abuse, primarily driven by heightened patient expectations and systemic deficiencies within the healthcare system. In this article, we will look into the laws for the prevention of violence against doctors in India.
The frequency of such incidents has escalated significantly, underscoring the urgent need for robust protective measures. The medical profession is widely recognized as one of the most stressful careers. A study conducted by the Indian Medical Association revealed that 82% of doctors in India experience high levels of stress.
The public sees doctors as heroes, but a disturbing trend of violence against doctors threatens their ability to save lives. This increase in incidents is driven by multiple factors, including patient frustration over long wait times, perceived inadequacies in treatment, and the overall strain on the healthcare system.
Consequently, there has been a growing demand for stricter laws and more comprehensive protective measures for healthcare professionals. Let us explore the legal remedies available to doctors who encounter violence while performing their duties.
Central Laws for the Prevention of Violence Against Doctors
The most significant step for the protection of health care workers can be traced to the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020, which aims to protect healthcare personnel from violence during epidemics.
The government introduced the bill to send across the message of zero tolerance for any form of violence against frontline workers engaged in the health sector and damage to their property.
The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020, enacted by the Indian Parliament, introduces several key changes to the original Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897.
Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020
This amendment defines “acts of violence” as including harassment, harm to healthcare workers, obstruction of justice, and property damage and Healthcare personnel include individuals involved in epidemic-related duties, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, community health workers, and other authorised personnel.
According to this amendment, convictions for offences are cognizable and not subject to bail, and trials should ideally be completed within a year. For basic offences, the punishment ranges from 3 months to 5 years in prison and a fine of Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2 lakh. Causing grievous hurt carries a harsher sentence, with imprisonment of 6 months to 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh.
Though doctors risk their lives every day, except during epidemics, there’s currently no central law specifically protecting them from violence. However, relevant sections exist in both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the revised new criminal code, the Bhartiya Nayay Samhita, which can be applied in the setting of violence against doctors.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) was introduced to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and will come into effect on July 1, 2024. The table below lists various sections of the BNS that can be applied in cases of violence against healthcare professionals.
Category | Section(s) | Offence | Definition | Punishment |
Criminal Conspiracy | 61,62 | Criminal conspiracy | It is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act or to achieve a legal outcome by illegal methods. The law considers the agreement itself to be a conspiracy. | Punishable with Death, Imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, as if he had abetted such offence, where no express provision is made for the punishment of such a conspiracy; or Punished with imprisonment up to six months, or with fine, or with both.
|
Offences Against Public Tranquillity | 189, 190, | Unlawful assembly | Assembly of five or more persons with a common objective to commit a crime or resist execution of law. | Up to 6 months, fine, or both or up to 2 years, fine, or, both. |
| 191 | Rioting | Use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly. | If guilty of rioting, then punishable up with imprisonment up to 2 years, a fine, or both (Section 191(2)); if guilty of rioting with armed weapons, then punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years, a fine, or both. Section (191(3)); if guilty of provoking to cause the offence of rioting, then punishable with imprisonment up to 1 year, or a fine, or both. If there is no rioting: imprisonment up to 6 months, a fine, orboth ( Section (190)). |
| 194 | Affray | When two or more people fight in a public place, disturbing public peace. | Imprisonment up to 1 month, a fine up to Rs. 1000, or both. (194 (2)). |
195 | Assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot, etc. | Whoever assaults or obstructs any public servant or uses criminal force on any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray. | Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine not less than Rs. 25,000, or both (195(1)); imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both. (195(2)). | |
Offences Affecting Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency, and Morals | 270, 271, 296 | Public nuisance, negligent acts likely to spread infection, obscene acts and songs | Act causing injury, danger, or annoyance to the public; Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life; obscene acts and songs in public places (294). | With imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both (271); punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both (296). |
Crimes Against the Human Body | 114115 | Hurt | Bodily pain, disease, or infirmity caused to any person (114); voluntarily causing hurt (115); voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means (118). | Up to 1 year, or with fine which may extend to Rs10,000/-, or with both (114); 3 years, or with fine which may extend to Rs20,000, or with both (118). |
| 116 | Grievous hurt | Injuries of a more serious nature, such as loss of limb or permanent disfigurement (114); voluntarily causing grievous hurt (115); voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means (116). | Up to 7 years, fine, or both (116(2)); imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 1 year but which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine (116(3)). |
| 126 | Wrongful restraint | Voluntarily obstructing someone to prevent them from proceeding in any direction. | Up to 1 month, fine up to ₹5000, or both. |
| 127 | Wrongful Confinement | Wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. | Up to 1 year, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000, or with both. |
| 129 and 130 | Criminal force and assault | Intentionally using force to any person without that person’s consent (129); making any gesture or preparation intending to use criminal force (130). | Up to 3 months, fine up to ₹1000, or both (131); up to 2 years, fine, or both (grave provocation) (132). |
Offences Against Property | 303 | Theft | Dishonestly taking any movable property out of the possession of any person without their consent. | Up to 3 years, fine, or both (303(2)). |
| 309 | Robbery | Theft or extortion accompanied by violence or threat of violence (307). | Up to 10 years, fine; up to 14 years in some cases (309(2)); up to 7 years, fine (309(3)); up to life, rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years, and fine (309(4)). |
| 310 | Dacoity | Robbery committed by five or more persons. | Life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years, and fines. |
|
324 | For mischief | Causing destruction or damage to property with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage. | Up to 6 months, fine, or both. |
| 329 | Criminal trespass and House-trespa | Entering or remaining in property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property. | Up to 3 months, fine up to ₹5000, or both (327(3)); up to 1 year, a which may extend to ₹5000, or with both (327(4)). |
Other Offences | 356 | Defamation | Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. | Up to 2 years, fine, or both. |
| 351,352 | Criminal intimidation, insult, and annoyance | Threatening any person with injury to their person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm (351); intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace (352); Whoever, in a state of intoxication, appears in any public place, or in any place which it is a trespass in him to enter, and there conducts himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to any person (353). | Up to 2 years, fine, or both (352(2)); Up to 2 years, fine, or both (352); up to twenty-four hours, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000, or with both or with community service (353). |
State Laws for the Prevention of Violence Against Doctors
Across India, different states have created their own laws to protect doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers against violence.
The below-mentioned 23 states have laws protecting health care workers from violence, while the states of Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Sikkim do not have any laws currently at the state level for the same.
Even though each state has its own law that fits its needs, these laws all share some common themes. We’ll now take a look at these laws for the prevention of violence against doctors and see what punishments they have for violence and the compensation they offer to the victims.
State Laws | Inclusion of private Medicare institutions | Penalty/Punishment | Compensation for property damage |
1. The Andhra Pradesh Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2008 | Yes | Imprisonment of up to 3 years and fine up to Rs 50,000. | Yes |
2. The West Bengal Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2009
| Yes | Imprisonment of up to 3 years and fine up to Rs 50,000. | Yes |
3. Bihar Medical Service Institution And Person Protection Act, 2011 | Yes | Imprisonment of 3 years, a fine up to Rs 50,000, and/or action under IPC. | Yes |
4. The Chhattisgarh Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage Or Loss To Property) Act, 2010 | Yes
| Imprisonment up to 3 years. | Yes |
5. The Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage Or Loss To Property) Act, 2010
| Yes | Imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine up to Rs 50,000. | Yes |
6. The Tripura Medicare Service Person And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2013
| Yes | Imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine up to Rs 50,000. | Yes |
7. The Delhi Medicare Service Personnel And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2008
| Yes | Imprisonment up to 3 years, fine up to Rs 10,000, or both. | Yes |
8. The Goa Medicare Service Personnel And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage Or Loss To Property) Act, 2013 | Yes | Imprisonment up to 3 years, fine up to Rs 50,000, or both. | Yes |
9. The Haryana Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2009
| Yes | Imprisonment of 3 years. | Yes |
10. The Karnataka Prohibition Of Violence Against Medicare Service Personnel And Damage To Property In Medicare Service Institutions Act, 2009
| Yes | Imprisonment of 3 years with a fine of up to Rs 50,000. | Yes |
11. The Kerala Healthcare Service Persons And Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2012 | Yes | Imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine up to Rs 50,000. | Yes |
12. Madhya Pradesh Chikitsak Tatha Chikitsa Seva Se Sambaddha Vyaktiyon Ki Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2008
| Yes | Imprisonment up to 3 months, fine up to Rs 10,000, or both. | No |
13. The Orissa Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2008
| No | Imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine up to Rs 50,000. | Yes |
14. The Tamil Nadu Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage Or Loss To Property) Act, 2008
| Yes | Imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine. | Yes |
15. The Uttar Pradesh Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2013
| Yes | Imprisonment up to 3 years, fine up to Rs 50,000, or both. | Yes |
16. The Assam Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2011
| Yes | Imprisonment for up to three years, with a fine that may extend to fifty thousand rupees. | Yes |
17. The Manipur Medicare Service Personnel And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2015
| Yes | Imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to Rs. 5,000. | Yes |
18. The Rajasthan Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2008
| Yes | Imprisonment up to three years and a fine, which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. | Yes |
19. The Telangana Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2008 | Yes | Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine that may extend to fifty thousand rupees. | Yes |
20. The Uttarakhand Medicare Service Persons And Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, 2013
| Yes | Imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years, or with a fine that may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. | Yes |
21. The Arunachal Pradesh Protection Of Medical Service Personnel And Medical Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage Or Loss Of Property) Act, 2019
| Yes | Imprisonment for a term not less than 3 years, which may extend upto 10 years, or with fine which may extend upto 5 lakhs rupees or with both.
| Yes
|
22. The Punjab Protection Of Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Bill, 2008
| Yes | Imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or a fine, which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. | Yes |
23. The Jharkhand Medicare Service Persons And Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention Of Violence And Damage To Property) Bill, 2023 The bill has been referred to a select committee on the instance of opposition MLAs. | |||
Strong legal protections across states offer peace of mind to healthcare workers. Unlike some states, Orissa excludes private institutions from its definition of Medicare service institutions, and Madhya Pradesh doesn’t offer property damage compensation.
Furthermore, strong nationwide legislation deters violence against medical personnel and damage to facilities. Penalties under these state acts typically range from fines of ₹5,000 to ₹50,000 and imprisonment from 3 months to 10 years.
These measures offer healthcare workers a sense of security, allowing them to focus on their patients without fear of violence or vandalism. In light of the ongoing concern for doctor safety, let’s examine recent initiatives aimed at the prevention of violence against doctors.
Recent Developments In The Protection Of Health Care Workers
In an era where healthcare professionals are increasingly vulnerable to acts of violence and abuse, the need for comprehensive legislative measures to protect them has become paramount. Addressing this urgent requirement, Mr. Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament, introduced a significant private bill named ‘The Healthcare Personnel and Healthcare Institutions (Prohibition of Violence and Damage to Property) Bill, 2023’.
This proposed legislation aims to safeguard healthcare professionals and medical institutions from acts of violence, verbal abuse, and property damage, thereby fostering a secure working environment for all individuals associated with the healthcare sector.
The bill extends its protective umbrella beyond just doctors, encompassing paramedical students, workers, administrative staff of hospitals, healthcare institutions, and ASHA workers.
Under this bill, all acts of violence will be classified as non-bailable and cognizable offenses, with clear timelines for the investigation of cases and the adjudication of the accused. However, this bill lapsed as the 17th Lok Sabha was dissolved following the 2024 elections.
The gravity of this issue is evident in the following incidents:
- Following the demise of a patient who suffered a massive cardiac arrest and failed to respond to treatment at V.G. Nursing Home, the family members turned violent, assaulting doctors and medical staff. Charges were filed under the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Medicare Service Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act 2009 against the accused.
- The tragic suicide of Dr. Archana Sharma, an obstetrician in Rajasthan, occurred when Dr. Sharma and her husband were unjustly charged with murder following a patient’s death due to postpartum hemorrhage. In her suicide note, she wrote, “I have done nothing wrong and not killed anyone. PPH [postpartum haemorrhage] is a known complication, so stop harassing doctors so much over it.”
These incidents underscore the escalating challenges faced by healthcare professionals, particularly the alarming rise in violence against doctors in India. This highlights the urgent need for legislative measures specifically aimed at the prevention of violence against doctors. Such measures are crucial to ensuring they can perform their duties without fear of retribution or violence.
Judicial Perspective
In Abhilash Chandran v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court, while hearing a bail application of a police office accused of manhandling a doctor and subjecting him to violence, observed that “it is quite unfortunate that in spite of attending the duties in the most diligent manner, they (doctors) have to suffer such indignation, which goes to the extent of suffering physical and verbal assault. Even if they had a case that there was negligence on the part of the medical officer and hospital staff, that cannot be addressed by showing muscle power and manhandling the doctor in charge.” The court also stated that the sacrifice and dedication with which the doctors work do not deserve such behaviour.
Further, in Asif Iqbal v. State of Assam, the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, comprising Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ, and Manash Ranjan Pathak, J., directed connecting CCTV cameras of hospitals to the nearest police station to put a check on increasing instances of violence against medical practitioners.
It is evident that protecting healthcare workers is not merely a legal or legislative matter but a societal imperative. Though there are several protection mechanisms in most states to protect healthcare personnel from any kind of violence, with rising incidents, there is an urgent need for legislation at the central level.
As the nation continues to grapple with public health challenges, it is essential to uphold the dignity and safety of those on the frontlines of healthcare delivery. Through concerted efforts across legislative, judicial, and societal realms, India can foster an environment where healthcare professionals can carry out their duties without fear or intimidation, ultimately strengthening the healthcare system and safeguarding public health for all.
Sneha Bhonsle
Sneha is a Supreme Court of India advocate specializing in healthcare law and compliance. A US-certified medical coder with home health and HIPAA expertise, she also brings a strong understanding of pharmaceutical and life science regulations across the US, UK, and Asia-Pacific. As an AMR Advocate, Sneha champions responsible antibiotic use.
Sneha Bhonsle
Sneha is a Supreme Court of India advocate specializing in healthcare law and compliance. A US-certified medical coder with home health and HIPAA expertise, she also brings a strong understanding of pharmaceutical and life science regulations across the US, UK, and Asia-Pacific.
