|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act specifically prohibits advertisements promoting cures or remedies for a variety of physical and psychological conditions or ailments, including migraine, diabetes, arthritis, menstrual disorders, cancer, AIDS, obesity, skin pigmentation and physical stature. Similarly, the code of ethics drawn up by the Medical Council of India strictly prohibits medical professionals from soliciting patients either directly or indirectly. It also makes it clear that physicians shall not "boast" or publicise information about their cases, operations, cures or remedies. Now a recent order of the apex court has made it clear that it will not condone such unethical practices, be it an advertisement or even an article published in the media. This order should come as a warning to all medical practitioners, particularly those practising non-allopathic systems of medicine, who make unsubstantiated claims in the media about the "sure cure" that they offer in respect of certain diseases. Even though there is no reference here to the role of the media, this order should also underscore the need for more responsible reporting by the media when it comes to medical or health claims by medical practitioners, whichever may be the system of medicine that they practice. In this particular case, apparently, an ayurvedic practitioner and his daughter, an MBBS degree holder, held a press conference, claiming successful treatment of children affected with cancer, and this was published in a local Indian language newspaper. Around this time, the complainant’s son had been diagnosed with "osteo sarcoma right distal femur with marrow involvement" at the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, and had been advised amputation of the leg to prevent the cancer from spreading to other parts of the body. On seeing the newspaper article, the complainant approached the doctors who had publicised their "achievements" vis-`E0-vis a cure for cancer, and on being assured of a cure, got his son treated by them. However, his hopes were belied and the son died at the young age of 21. Before the state commission, the doctors argued that they had successfully treated children suffering from cancer and there was a cure in ayurveda for it. However, they denied their active involvement in getting the report about their "successes" published. They also pointed out that even if the boy had undergone amputation and chemotherapy, there was no cent per cent chance of his survival. After hearing both the parties, the state commission observed: "The circumstances would indicate that the deceased and his parents were the victims of misleading publicity and verbal assurances of the opposite parties. Hence, we find that it stands established that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service in the treatment imparted." It, therefore, awarded a compensation of Rs 1 lakh along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent from the date of the complaint, besides costs of Rs 6000. There was also a stipulation that if the amount was not paid within two months, the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12 per cent per anum. While upholding this order, the national consumer disputes redressal commission commented that this case presented a disturbing situation in as much as the opposite parties — an ayurvedic practitioner and his daughter, an MBBS doctor — had held out to the public at large through print media that they had the skill to treat the cancerous tumour in children. Allured by such publicity and the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant had taken his son aged 21 years to them for treatment, and on account of improper treatment and the failure to amputate the leg, the son had died. In the circumstances, the award of compensation given by the state commission was just and fair, the national commission held (Dr Kunhalan Gurukkal and another vs A.M.Muhammad and another, FA NO 340 of 2010, decided on November 16, 2010). This order also
emphasises the need for people to be far more careful and discerning
when it comes to such claims. Also, whenever consumers come across
advertisements pertaining to health claims, they would do well to
complain to the Advertising Standards Council of India, a
self-regulatory body, and also to the state Health Department, which
enforces the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.
|
|||
|
|
|||
