Ethics in HR, Medical

411 views

Published on

Published in: Career
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
411
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ethics in HR, Medical

  1. 1. PRERNA MAKHIJANI ROLL NO. 29 PGDM IBETHICS IN HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSIONMadras High CourtThe Arumuganeri Salt Workers Coop. Vs. The President on 22 July, 2011The management of the Arumuganeri Salt Workers Coop. employed workers on daily wages. Inthe year 1992 the employers were giving a minimum daily wage of Rs.28 to male workers andRs. 26 to female workers.Next year, all of a sudden, without giving a prior notice to the workmen the minimum wageswere reduced by a substantial amount. In 1993, the minimum wages for male workers werereduced to Rs.24.90 and for female workers it was reduced to Rs.22.90. The employers to stayon the safe side of the law made sure that the revised wages were in consonance with theMinimum Wages Act.The workers were aggrieved over the sudden reduction of wages and the unwillingness of themanagement to hear out their woes. In order to get justice they approached the labour court.The labour court decided that the workers should be given the pay they were previouslydrawing considering the fact that it is illegal to reduce wages of any worker before giving priornotice of the same. So the labour court reinstated the wages already being given to both maleand female workers.The management of Arumuganeri Salt Workers Coop. were not satisfied with the decision andbelieved that the Labour court had made an error of judgment because according to theMinimum Wages Act of 1960, the minimum wages were fixed at Rs.24.90 and Rs.22.90 formales and females respectively. They approached the Madurai bench of Madras High Court toappeal again after several years.The High court rightly did not interfere with the Labour court’s decision on several grounds. TheHigh court agreed with the Labour Court, as no notice was given to the workers before reducingtheir wages. Also they believed that the Minimum Wages Act only stipulated the lowest wagesthat can be offered to a worker. This does not mean that the organization will rightfully paylower wages. The employer is always open to pay higher wages to its employees.The management thought that they could get away with a loophole in the Minimum wages Actof 1960, with unethical practices involving reduction of wages of unskilled labour. But the HighCourt rightly upheld the interests of the workers.Source: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1405569
  2. 2. PRERNA MAKHIJANI ROLL NO. 29 PGDM IBETHICS IN MEDICAL PROFESSIONMadras High CourtM/S.Soni Hospital vs Arun Balakrishnan Iyer on 11 March, 2011Meena Balakrishnan Iyer was admitted to Soni Hospital to be operated for an ovarian cyst. As itturns out during the course of the operation the doctor informed her husband Arun that theuterus also needs to be removed. Arun said he needs to seek permission from Meena but thedoctor informed him that she was under anesthesia and he needed to take a decision there andthen. Left with no option he let the doctors decide what’s best for her. Even after the operationMeena complained of severe stomach ache, dysentery, nausea and vomiting. The condition gotdeteriorated day-by-day inspite of the treatment given by the doctors. After approachingseveral physicians for a cure, none seemed to have diagnosed the problem correctly. Finally, ina Chennai nursing home barium x-ray test was done to reveal an enlarged intestine. A surgerywas performed and to the shock and surprise, an abdominal pad measuring 12 inches x 12inches was found lying inside the body in the junction of small and large intestine. The padcontained a label contained “Soni Hospital”. It was accordingly removed and a notice wasserved to Soni Hospital which did not respond to the notice.Arun Balakrishnan Iyer demanded a total sum of Rs.1500000 for physical pain, mental agonyand other expenses borne for the treatment which was required by Meena after the surgerytook place. In defense, Soni hospital claimed that even though the surgery did take place,Meena did not complain of any stomach aches after the surgery. They also denied leaving theabdominal pad inside the intestine during the operation. They also wanted the appeal to bedismissed on grounds that there was a lack of territorial jurisdiction as the surgery to removethe pad was done in Jaipur. Further, the abdominal pad removed from the intestine was notsubmitted as evidence in the court and only photographs were taken which did not havenegatives. The court did not accept photographs without negatives.The doctor who operated on Meena in Jaipur, however, gave a written note explaining thesituation and the peculiarity of the case. As this doctor had no enmity with the doctors at Sonihospital, the report was taken to be authentic.So just on the basis of a report made by the doctor, the court awarded a compensation ofRs.355000 in all to Arun and Meena on the basis of medical negligence by Soni Hospital.Source: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1722433/

×