In a recent development, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has granted interim relief to doctors and  directed the police to refrain from initiating action against medical professionals displaying  professional logos or stickers on their private vehicles. The plea was in response to a recent circular  released by Greater Chennai Traffic Police (GCTP) banning the use of stickers indicating  professions such as Doctors, Lawyers, Press, and Police, from 2 May 2024, stating that such stickers  are used as a tool of misuse to gain immunity. 

The intervention of the Hon’ble High Court was followed by a plea filed by the Doctors Welfare  Association which sought exemption from police action against doctors for placing professional  identifiers on their private vehicle. The plea argued that the role of such professional stickers is to  navigate through traffic and checks in case of emergency cases seamlessly, without delay, and not to  gain immunity. 

The National Medical Commission (NMC) and Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) were  suggested to provide authorised vehicle stickers to medical professionals, similar to the Bar Council’s  practice for advocates. The High Court observed that genuine medical professionals should not be  penalised considering the critical nature of their work where timely response to medical emergencies  are of utmost importance. 

Further, the Hon’ble High Court noted that authorised stickers are to be properly affixed either in  the front or rear sides of the vehicles and not on the number plates that would help distinguish  genuine medical practitioners from those who are misusing such identifiers. However, the Court  stated that the police should stop and check suspicious vehicles to prevent sticker abuse. 

The case has been scheduled for final hearing on June 14, 2024. Meanwhile, the Hon’ble High Court  has barred the police from initiating action against medical professionals displaying professional  stickers until NMC and TNMC submit their response and potentially establish a policy for issuing  authorised stickers to doctors, as suggested by the Court.

Second Opinion in Medical Dilemmas 

In Laxmikant Vittalrao Pandav & Ors v/s Akar Hospital & Ors, the State Commission  dismissed a case against the hospital and doctors, affirming that second opinions in medical  dilemmas is a commendable practice that benefits patients. The patient was under antenatal care at  the hospital for two months of her pregnancy and a final ultrasound revealed severe oligohydramnios  with the umbilical cord around the neck and cephalopelvic disproportion. An elective lower 

segment caesarean section (LSCS) was successfully performed five days before the expected delivery  date. Post bleeding was later detected at the surgical site that evening. The medical team in response  conducted an exploratory laparotomy and sought a second opinion from a senior gynaecologist,  physician and anaesthetist. After the laparotomy, the patient was diagnosed with disseminated  intravascular coagulation and was placed on a ventilator. Following the events, the patient was  transferred to another hospital 100 kilometers away where she unfortunately passed away due to  interstitial pneumonia with pulmonary oedema and acute tubular necrosis post-LSCS. 

The patient’s family alleged that the laparotomy was performed without consent and necessary  investigations and claimed unauthorised involvement of other doctors. The hospital and doctors  stated that based on the discussions and second opinions, a re-exploratory laparotomy was deemed  necessary and the patient’s attendants were kept informed throughout. 

Upon reviewing the medical records, the Court noted that the patient received timely and thorough  care during her postoperative period. It was further observed that re-exploration in the given case  was urgent and that the surgery was performed after obtaining informed consent. It was concluded  by the State Commission that involvement of additional doctors was a collective and authorised  effort and not unauthorised as alleged. Further, the Commission held that no consent of the  patient/attendants is required for such consultations inter-se amongst doctors and emphasised that  consulting other doctors in critical situations is a prudent practice and such collaborative efforts aid  in providing the best possible care to the patient.