The Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition calling for a mandate requiring doctors to provide patients with detailed explanations of the risks and side effects associated with prescribed medications.

The Court ruled that implementing such a requirement would be impractical for general medical practitioners, as it could significantly reduce their ability to manage the daily patient load.

The petition had proposed that doctors provide a written note in the local language, outlining potential adverse effects of medications. It emphasized that patients should have full awareness of drug risks to ensure informed consent, highlighting that while pharmacists include risk information with medication packaging, doctors have no equivalent obligation to directly inform patients about these risks.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that a significant number of patient injuries occur due to uncommunicated side effects of medications. He advocated for the disclosure of contraindications and side effects, suggesting that doctors could provide a printed proforma summarizing these effects, which would help patients understand the risks without burdening doctors with additional time-consuming tasks.

The bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, carefully considered the feasibility of mandatory drug risk disclosures. Justice Gavai observed that requiring doctors to explain the risks of each medication to every patient would drastically reduce their ability to treat a large number of patients, especially in high-demand healthcare settings.

He pointed out that, under such a requirement, a doctor might only be able to see 10-15 patients a day, which would create significant logistical challenges, strain the healthcare system, and limit patient access.

Regarding the suggestion for a standard printed proforma, Justice Gavai noted that individual treatment plans vary, and a generic document might not address the specific risks for each patient’s tailored medication regimen. He also reminded that doctors are already responsible for patient care under the Consumer Protection Act, and adding further duties could place an additional burden on their role.

Justice Viswanathan, proposing an alternative, suggested that pharmacies could display a general notice in local languages, urging patients to carefully read the packaging for risk information. This, he noted, would inform patients without imposing an excessive burden on doctors.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that changes in patient communication standards are more appropriately handled through legislative policy. It referenced a previous dismissal of a similar petition by the Delhi High Court, which held that such disclosure standards should be established by legislative bodies rather than the judiciary due to the broader implications for healthcare administration.

As a result, the petition was dismissed.