By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The plight of road accident victims left unattended at the site is often heart wrenching. The callousness of humanity and an insensate system are called to question. This is more so because the good samaritan who helps the victim often gets embroiled in criminal cases. This point was forcefully brought home by a recent ruling of the Kerala High Court.
Justice Sophy Thomas made an observation in Marykutty Kurian & Anr. vs Babu Joseph & Anr., where an autorickshaw driver who took a road accident victim to hospital was charged with causing his death. The Court held: “Innocent victims of road traffic accidents had lost their lives lying unattended for hours together with bleeding injuries, as nobody may extend a helping hand due to fear of false accusation.”
As per the website of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, in the last ten years, road crashes have killed over 13 lakh people in India. The Law Commission of India said that 50% of these victims died of preventable injuries and could have been saved if they had received timely care. The role of the bystander, therefore, is critical in providing emergency care to the victim. Yet, in India, bystanders have often been hesitant to help for fear of legal repercussions and procedural hassles.
Seventeen people die every hour on Indian roads and nearly 50% of the victims could have been saved if medical attention was given within the first hour. This critical first hour is termed as the Golden Hour, a period where medical help can save lives.
The ministry website exhorts citizens to be good samaritans. A good samaritan is a person who “in good faith, without expectation of payment or reward and without any duty of care or special relationship, voluntarily comes forward to administer immediate assistance or emergency care to a person injured in an accident, or crash, or emergency medical condition, or emergency situation”.
Legal protection for good samaritans is vital. Though the Parliament has not enacted such a law, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines in this regard. In 2012, a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court requesting it to safeguard good samaritans who come forward to help the injured.
Good Samaritan norms were formed by court verdicts. The Supreme Court laid down guidelines in the judgment of Savelife Foundation & Anrs vs Union of India and The Karnataka Good Samaritan and Medical Professional (Protection and Regulation during Emergency Situations), 2018. The norms provide guidelines for a legal structure that encourages bystanders to help people who are injured.
Thereafter, the centre notified guidelines for the protection of those who help accident victims. In January 2016, a Standard Operating Procedure to make these guidelines work was introduced. The Union Road Transport Ministry added a clause under which a good samaritan’s affidavit will have the legal force of a statement.
In 2020, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways published rules for the protection of good samaritans. They should be treated respectfully without any discrimination on the grounds of religion, nationality, caste or sex. No police officer or any other person shall compel a good samaritan to disclose his name, identity, address or any such other personal details. Every public and private hospital shall publish a charter in Hindi, English and the vernacular language at the entrance and on their website stating the rights of good samaritans under the Act. There is also a provision for them to become a witness in an accident case.
A new Section 134A titled, “Protection of Good Samaritans” was inserted through the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which provides that “a Good Samaritan shall not be liable for any civil or criminal action for any injury to or death of the victim of an accident involving a motor vehicle, where such injury or death resulted from the Good Samaritan’s negligence in acting or failing to act while rendering emergency medical or non-medical care or assistance and that the Central Government may by rules provide for the procedure for questioning or examination of the Good Samaritan, disclosure of personal information of the Good Samaritan and such other related matters”.
But the fear of getting charged with criminal cases and hospital fees has dissuaded a large number of bystanders from helping these hapless victims.
According to a national study by SaveLIFE Foundation and TNS India Pvt. Ltd., 74% of bystanders are unlikely to assist victims of road accidents, 88% of them fear legal hassles, including repeated police questioning and multiple court appearances and 77% cited detention at hospitals and having to pay hospital registration fees and other charges as reasons not to help.
States too are doing work in this regard. West Bengal has issued an order communicating Good Samaritan Guidelines to all government and private hospitals to encourage passers-by to help road accident victims and protect them from legal troubles. The guidelines state that the bystander who takes a victim to the hospital “should be allowed to leave immediately” and without being subjected to questions. He should not be forced to share contact details if he is unwilling to do so. Furthermore, he shall not be liable for any civil and criminal proceedings. These are important rules and if followed properly can encourage people to help accident victims. These can certainly be emulated by other state governments as well.
In the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways guidelines of 2015 to states, two points stand out: Firstly, the bystander or good Samaritan shall not be liable for any civil and criminal liability. Secondly, all registered public and private hospitals are not to detain a bystander or good samaritan or demand payment for registration and admission costs. If only these two norms are followed faithfully, much can be achieved.
In March 2022, the Supreme Court committee on road safety wrote a letter to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways regarding formation of District Road Safety Committees for each district in states, in accordance with Section 215 of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The guidelines included terms of reference and functions of the District Road Safety Committee.
Committees were directed to do a periodic review of the road accidents in the district; monitor the implementation of the state road safety policy; publish road accident data on a monthly basis on public domain; develop a district road safety plan; ensure forensic crash investigation for all mass fatality crashes in the district; ensure optimal placements of ambulances to help improve response time and handover time to hospitals; prepare an emergency medical plan for mass fatality accidents in the district…etc.
If the medical treatment is found wanting or the medical help is withheld, then punitive action is recommended, as per the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways notification of 2015 and Supreme Court guidelines. It states: “Lack of response by a doctor in an emergency situation pertaining to road accidents, where he is expected to provide care, shall constitute ‘Professional Misconduct’, and disciplinary action shall be taken against such doctor.”
The laws are also strict for rash driving and the Supreme Court is ever vigilant to uphold the spirit of road safety laws. In April 5, 2023, in a case of death by rash driving, the Court ruled against a Punjab High Court order which had reduced the sentence awarded to an SUV driver. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not considered that the Indian Penal Code was punitive and deterrent in nature. The bench observed that the Supreme Court had always underlined the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents.
Clearly, laws, observations and guidelines abound, but what is lacking is not only a new driving culture to prevent road accidents, but also a heightened sense of conscience and social commitment to help an accident victim.