Judicial Accountability Under the Consumer Protection Act: A Comparative Analysis of Doctors vs. Judges

Doctors vs. Judges: The Call for Judicial Accountability Under the Consumer Protection Act

The profession of medicine has always been scrutinized under the magnifying glass of the law. Doctors, who are tasked with saving lives, are held to exacting standards, often judged for every decision, every diagnosis, and every action they take. But what happens when the tables are turned, and the judiciary, the very institution responsible for ensuring justice, comes under the same scrutiny? Dr. Ramesh Ganesan raises a poignant question: Should the judiciary also come under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA)?

The Case of Salman Khan: A Tale of Contradictory Judgments

In the infamous Salman Khan hit-and-run case, the contrast between the decisions of the lower court and the high court was stark. Both judges had the same evidence, the same law to follow, and likely similar educational backgrounds, yet their interpretations led to two completely opposite outcomes. This raises a critical question: How can two judges, armed with the same information, arrive at such divergent conclusions?

This scenario leads to a thought-provoking comparison with the medical field. Imagine a young doctor in a government hospital, overwhelmed with hundreds of patients daily. Suppose this doctor diagnoses a celebrity patient with gastric discomfort as having gastritis, only for another hospital to later discover that the patient was actually suffering from a myocardial infarction. The doctor would likely face severe consequences, including the possibility of legal action and imprisonment.

Why, then, should judges be exempt from similar accountability? If a doctor can be prosecuted for a wrong diagnosis made in the heat of the moment, shouldn’t a judge who has years to deliberate on a case be held to the same standard when they deliver a flawed verdict?

The Disparity in Time: Doctors vs. Judges

Doctors often have mere minutes, sometimes seconds, to make life-and-death decisions. They are expected to diagnose and treat patients almost instantaneously, a task that requires not only skill but also an element of intuition. Medicine, after all, is more art than exact science. In contrast, judges have the luxury of time. They can take years to weigh evidence, consider arguments, and arrive at a decision. Yet, when a doctor errs, the consequences are immediate and severe, while a judge who delivers a wrong verdict after years of deliberation can walk away unscathed.

This disparity in accountability is troubling. If doctors and hospitals can be sued for malpractice, why shouldn’t judges face similar repercussions for delivering incorrect verdicts? If hospitals are criticized for not admitting poor patients, why is there no outcry over the courts’ backlog of millions of pending cases?

The Art of Medicine vs. The Science of Law

Medicine is a blend of science and art. It involves not just the application of medical knowledge but also the ability to interpret symptoms, consider a patient’s history, and make a judgment call. There are no absolute certainties in medicine, and doctors are often required to make decisions based on incomplete information. Law, on the other hand, is entirely man-made. It is a system of rules and regulations that should, in theory, leave little room for error. Yet, doctors are expected to be infallible, while judges, who work within a system designed by humans, are allowed to make mistakes without facing the same level of scrutiny.

If doctors have a duty to society to provide accurate diagnoses and effective treatments, shouldn’t the judiciary also have a responsibility to deliver fair and just verdicts? And if they fail in this duty, shouldn’t they be held accountable in the same way doctors are?

The Question of Fees: Lawyers vs. Doctors

One of the most striking points raised by Dr. Ganesan is the disparity in how society views the fees charged by doctors compared to those charged by lawyers. The media is often filled with stories about the high cost of medical care, with calls for capping the fees doctors charge for various procedures. However, there is little discussion about the exorbitant fees charged by high-profile lawyers for their court appearances. Lawyers like Manu Singhvi and Ram Jethmalani, known for their expertise and success rates, charge astronomical sums, yet there is no public outcry or government intervention to cap these fees.

If health is a citizen’s right, so is justice. Just as there are calls for making healthcare more affordable, shouldn’t there also be a discussion about making legal representation more accessible to the average citizen? If we are to cap the fees doctors can charge, shouldn’t we also consider capping the fees that lawyers charge to ensure that justice is not just a privilege for the wealthy but a right for all?

The Case for Judicial Accountability Under the CPA

The arguments presented by Dr. Ganesan highlight the need for a broader discussion on judicial accountability. If doctors, who operate in a field that is as much an art as it is a science, are held to such high standards, shouldn’t judges, who operate within the confines of man-made laws, be held to similar standards?

Bringing the judiciary under the Consumer Protection Act would be a step toward ensuring that judges are also accountable for their decisions. Just as doctors can be sued for malpractice, judges who deliver flawed verdicts after years of deliberation should also face consequences. This would not only bring a sense of fairness to the system but also reinforce the idea that every profession, whether it is medicine or law, has a duty to society and must be held accountable for its actions.

In conclusion, while the debate between the roles and responsibilities of doctors and judges is complex, one thing is clear: there is a need for greater accountability within the judiciary. If we expect doctors to be perfect in their diagnoses and treatments, we should also expect judges to be flawless in their interpretation and application of the law. And if they fail, they too should be subject to the same scrutiny and consequences that doctors face. After all, justice, like health, is a fundamental right of every citizen.

#JudicialAccountability #ConsumerProtection #LegalReform #Medicolegal #DoctorsVsJudges #JusticeForAll #LegalEthics #MedicalEthics #HealthcareLaw #LegalSystem