Right to Emergency Care - Supreme Court, india-- is correct or not?

The Supreme Court has ruled that all injured persons especially in the case of road traffic accidents, assaults, etc., when brought to a hospital / medical centre, have to be offered first aid, stabilized and shifted to a higher centre / government centre if required.

It is only after this that the hospital can demand payment or complete police formalities.

In case you are a bystander and wish to help someone in an accident, please go ahead and do so.

Your responsibility ends as soon as you leave the person at the hospital. The hospital bears the responsibility of informing the police, first aid, etc.

Plz let me know whether this is correct information or not?

This piece of information , as available on the net, does not appear to be factually correct. As per the net version of this judgment, the date of judgment has been shown to be 23/02/2007 and case number has been mentioned as Appeal ( civil ) 919 of 2007. However, a quick followup of the said reference on the courtnic site shows this to be an indirect tax matter and apparently not pertaining to the subject matter. The said judgment is in the case of Share Medical Care and pertains to customs duty exemption of certain medical equipments by charitable hospitals.

IT IS NOT A HOAX.
SEE THE CORRECT COURT ORDER.Criminal Writ Petn. No. 270 of 1988 dated by Ranganath Misra dated 28 Aug 1989
http://judis.nic.in/supremecou... (original order Copy here)SOME ONE WRONGLY QUOTED ANOTHER CASE NO. Report It

No govt. has not pass it yet.

Thanks
James

god knows ... coz da citation on da net given is some other case law .. it does not even mention abt the subject

The message tells us that this is the Supreme Court judgement to Appeal(Civil) 919 of 2007. On searching the Judgement Information System it was clear that the case was in no manner related to the said message.
It was about a no-profit charitable hospital based in Ghanapur, Andhra Pradesh having claimed exemptions on imported medical equipments, based on Para 2 of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, which were granted. But since according to the classification of hospitals by the notification, it fell under Para 3, it also applied for exemption under the same, after the first exemption was granted..........

It is incorrect. I had earlier managed to track down the link to the Supreme Court of United States of America. Unfortunately since my ip gets tracked as that from India, and so all search engines now keep throwing the India related links, and the original link is difficult to be found.
I have requested my friends whom i earlier shared the link to send it back to me. I deleted the email, thinking i will always get back the link. But thats not so.
Suffice to say, this ruling is in US and not in India. and as and when i get the US link back, I will post it here.