Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No D. 221

The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY

PART II—Section 2

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 45] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9,1970/KARTIKA 18,1892

Separate paging la given to this Part in order that It may be filed

as a separate compilation

RAJYA SABHA

No. RS 1 (1) /70-Com.—The following report of the Joint Committee of the House of Parliament on the Bill to provide for the termination of certain pregnancies by registered medical practitioners and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto was presented to the Rajya Sabha on the 9th November, 1970: —

COMPOSITION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

MEMBERS

Rajya Sabha

1. Shri Mulka Govinda Reddy—Chairman*.

2. Dr. (Mrs.) Mangladevi Talwar.

3. Shri M. Srinivasa Reddy**.

4. Shrimati Usha Barthakur.

5. Shri Krishan Kant.

6. Shri Sawaisingh Sisodia**.

*Ceaaed to be a member and Chairman of the Committee consequent upon his retirement from the membership of the Rajya Subha on the 2nd April, 1970. Re-elected to the Rajya Sabha on the 3rd April, 1970 Re-appointed as a member of the Committee on the 14th May, 1970. Appointed again as Chairman of the Committee on the 15th May, 1970.

**Appointed on the 14th May, 1970, in the vacancies caused by the retirement of Shri Narayan Patra and Dr. S. Chandrasekhar, from the membership of the Rajya Sabha on the 2nd April, 1970.

( 871 )

7. Shri K, P. Mallikarjunudu.

8. Shrimati Bindumati Devi.

9. Shri Niranjan Varma.

10. Shri G. Gopinathan Nair.

Shri S. A. Khaja Mohideen.

11.

Lok Sabha

12. Shri Vidya Dhar Bajpai.

Shri Gangacharan Dixit.

13.

Shri Ganesh Ghosh.

14.

Shri Kameshwar Singh.

15.

Shri S. Kandappan.

18.

Dr. Kami Singh.

17.

Shri Kinder Lal.

18.

Sferl P, Viswambharan.

19.

Shri N. R. Laskar.

20.

21. Hazi Lutfal Haque.

Shri M. R. Masani.

22.

Shri Mohammad Yusuf.

23.

24. SkBtf B. S. M-arthy.

25. Shrimati Shakuntala Nayar.

2& Dr. Sudhila Nayar.

Shri Partap Singh.

27.

28. Shri Rate Swaru$>.

Dr; M. Santosham.

29.

#0. Shrimati Tara Sapre.

Shri M. R. Sharma.

31.

Shri Babunath Singh.

32.

Shri Jageshwar Yadav.

33.

REPBESENTATTVE OF THE MINISTKUM

Ministry of Law

1. Shri S, K. Maitra, Joint Secretary and Legislative Counsel.

2. Shri R. N. Shinghal, Deputy Legislative Counsel.

3. £>hri S. Ramaiah, Deputy Legislative Counsel.

Ministry of-HeaUh and Family Planning and Works, Housing and Vrbcm

Development

1. Shri R. N. Madhok, Joint Secretary. 2. Dr. [(Kumari) L. V. Phatak, Commissioner.

3. Shri D. N. Chaudhari, Deputy Secretary. Dr. I. Bhooshana Rao, Deputy Commissioner.

4.

5. Dr. G. P. Sen Gupta, Deputy Commissioner.

Dr. S. V. Raja Rao, Assistant Commissioner.

6.

Dr. (Smt.) S. F. Jalnawalla, Deputy Director.

7.

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri S. S. Bhalerao, Joint Secretary.

2. Shri S. P. Ganguly, Deputy Secretary.

3. Shri Kewal Krishan, Deputy Secretary.

4. Shri M. K. Jain, Under Secretary.

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

1. the Chairman of the Joint Committee to which the Bill* to provide for the termination of certain pregnancies by registered medical prac- titioners and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, was referred, having been authorised to submit the report on their behalf, present this their Report, with the Bill as amended by the Committee, annexed thereto.

2. The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the 17th November, 1969. The motion for reference of the Bill to a Joint-Committee of the Houses was moved by Dr. S. Chandrasekhar the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Health and Family Planning and Works Housing and Urban Development on the 3rd December, 1969, and was adopted by the House on the 8th December, 1969 (Appendix I).

3. The Lok Sabha discussed and concurred in the motion on trie 24tK December, 1969 (Appendix II) and the message from the Lok Sabha was reported to the Rajya Sabha on the same day.

4. The Committee held 19 sittings in all.

5. At their first sitting hold on the 30th January, 1970, the Committee decided that a Press communique be issued inviting memoranda on the Bill from various associations, organizations and individuals interestec in the subject matter of tho Bill and advising them to send the same to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat by the 20th February, 1970. The Com- mittee further decided to call witnesses for giving oral evidence on the Bill and authorised the Chairman to decide, after examining all the memoranda, as to who might be invited for the purpose. The Chairman also requested members to sucgost names of persons who might be invited for giving oral evidence bofore the Committee.

6. The Committee received memoranda, suggestions etc. on the Bill from twenty-one persons/associations (Appendix III).

7. The Committee heard the evidence tendered by twenty-six wit- nesses (Appendix IV).

8. The Committee decided that the evidence tendered before them should be printed and laid on the Table in both the Houses.

9. The Report of the Committee was to be presented to the House by the first day of the Seventy-first session of the Rajya Sabha. The Committee were, however, granted extension of time first, upto the first day of the Seventv-third (Jul(v-August, 1970) Session and then again upto the first day of the Seventy-fourth (November-December, 1970) Spssion of the Raiya Sabha.

•Published in Part H, Section 2 of the Gazette of India Extraordinary, datefl 17th November, 1969.

10. The Committee considered and adopted the Draft Report at their sitting held on the 3rd November, 1970.

11. The principal changes suggested by the Committee in the BM and the reasons therefor are set out in the succeeding paragraphl.

CLAUSE 1

New Clause 6 inserted in the Bill provides for framing o* rules by the Central Government to carry out the provisions of the Act generally

and, in particular, to prescribe experience or training which a registered medical practitioner should have if he intends to terminate any preg- nancy under the Act. Further, Clause 7 (original Clause 6) empowers the State Governments to make regulations on certain matters provided in the Act. As it might take some time before these rules and regula- tions are framed and finalised by the Governments concerned, the Com- mittee feel that practical difficulties would arise if the Act came into operation immediately. The Committee, therefore, feel that the Act Should come into operation after the rules and regulations hare been

fore, been inserted empowering the Central Government to appoint, by framed by the Governments concerned. A new sub-clause has, therw

notification in the Official Gazette, a date on which the Act will con* into force.

CLAUSE 2

Paragraph (a).—Under sub-clause (4) of clause 3, the consent of tfk guardian has been made obligatory for the termination of pregnancy of a woman when the latter is either a minor or a lunatic. In the cir- cumstances, the expression "guardian" has been so defined by ttie Committee as to cover not only the guardian of a minor but also th* guardian of a lunatic.

Further, the Committee are of the opinion that, for the purposes of this Act, it would be sufficient if the person having the care of the person of the minor or lunatic is denned as the guardian. The Com- mittee have, therefore, omitted reference to the person having the care of the property of the minor, so that a person having the care of the property only of the minor or lunatic may not exercise the powers con- ferred on the guardian by the Act.

Paragraph (d).—As the termination of pregnancy is a delicate opera- tion and, at times, involves serious complications and even danger to the life of the pregnant woman, the Committee are of the opinion that such an operation should be carried out only by those registered medical practitioners who have the requisite experience or training in gynaecolojfy and obstetrics and that the experience or training which a registered medical practitioner must possess in this regard, should be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government. Accordingly, the Committee have amended the definition of the expression "registered medical practitioner".

CLAUSE 3

The Committee are of the opinion that for the termination of a pregnancy, where the length of pregnancy exceeds 12 weeks but does not exceed 20 we^ks. it. Is not. necessary that two registered mArii"ml

practitioners should act together. It would suffice if, in such a case, the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, formed in good faith, is hi* favour of termination of the pregnancy and the actual operation is carried out by a single registered medical practitioner. The Committee have amended sub-clause (2) of the clause to clarify the position.

Original gub-clause (4) made separate provisions for consent to be obtained for terminating pregnancies of a married woman when such pregnancy la alleged to have been caused by rape, or of a widow who is a minor or lunatic or of an unmarried girl who had not attained the age of 18 years or of an unmarried woman who, being above the age of 18 years, was a lunatic. The Committee feel that except in the case of termination of pregnancy of a woman who has not attained the age of 18 years or who Is a lunatic, obtaining of such a consent should not be made obligatory. The Committee have, therefore, substituted the revised paragraph" (a) for the original paragraphs (a), r(b), (c) and (d) of the sub-clause.

THe other changes made in the clause are of a verbal or clarifying nature.

CLAUSE 5

THe Committee are of the opinion that the relaxation provided In tHis Clause in the matter of length of pregnancy should extend only to (jasea where termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman and that It should not extend to cases where it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy to save permanent grave Injury to the physical of mental health of. the pregnant woman. Necessary changes have, therefore, been made in the Clause.

In view of the amendment in paragraph (d) of Clause 2, registered medical practitioner referred to in this clause would mean a registered medical practitioner who has experience or training in gynaecology and obstetrics. The Committee feel that where the termination of a preg- nancy Is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, the provision with regard to experience or training in gynaecology and obstetrics should not be insisted upon so that such pregnancy may be terminated, where necessary, by a general practitioner. An explanation to that effect has been added to the Clause.

CLAUSE 6 (New)

This new clause is consequential to the amendment carried out in paragraph (d)' of Clause 2.

The other changes made in the Bill are of a consequential or drafting

nature.

•12. For convenience and also for reference purposes, an Annexure detailing the clauses in the Bill as introduced in the Rajya Sabha which have now been amended by the Joint Committee has been added.

13. The Committee recommend that the Bill, as amended, be passed.

NEW DELHI;

MULKA GOVINDA REDDY, Chairman of the Joint Committee.

November 3, 1970.

MINUTES OF DISSENT

I

Abortions can be classified under three categories:—

1. Natural or spontaneous abortion;

2. Therapeutic abortion;

3. Criminal Abortion.

Spontaneous or natural abortions are caused unintentionally by things like desease. Therapeutic abortions are induced in good faith by medical practitioners when they are satisfied that the continuance of pregnancy will endanger the patient's life or seriously impair her health. Criminal abortions are those produced under circumstances which afford no lawful justification.

The subject of abortions has humanitarian, ethical, moral, social, eugenic, sociological, medical and legal ramifications. While medioal men are concerned with its medical aspects, lawyers are concerned with its legal side. But legislators or law-makers are concerned with till the aspects and particularly with its social, sociological and humanitarian aspects.

The present Bill is intended to enlarge the area of therapeutic abor- tions and reduce the area of criminal ones. Under the existing lastr a", contained in sections 312 to 316 of the Indian Penal Code an abortion i" legally permissible when it is done only to save the life oi tb"' mother and with her consent. The area of legal permissibility is sought to be widened by means of this Bill on grounds of (i) health (ii) humani- tarianism; and j(iii) eugenics as mentioned in the Statement ol Objects and Reasons.

The first question to be therefore considered is whether such liberal- isation of abortion is justified or not on ethical, social, medical and othei grounds. When the Bill was sent to various States for their comments, some States opposed liberalisation while some other States advised caution. A number of emminent witnesses gave evidences before the Committee which revealed a wide varietjy of divergent opinions. Some witnesses went to the extent of saying that any further liberalisation will lead to promiscuity in sexual life and undermine the moral founda- tions of our society. Some are of the view that in view of the grossly inadequate medical facilities available in our country, liberalisation on a wider scale should not be permitted. Some other witnesses held the view that in spite of great advances in medical science, the operation, of abortion is fraught with risks since it is done in an invisible region and hence any liberalisation should be as limited as far possible. It is revealed in the evidence that abortions should not be permitted in the case of unmarried woman, though it is allowed in the case of married

woman. Some witnesses on the other hand asserted that the matter should be left entirely to the choice of the pregnant woman, and she must be permitted on her request to have an induced abortion, Irrespec- tive of other considerations. A reconciliation of all these views and the knowledge of the experience of other advanced countries of the world, in this matter will however lead us to the conclusion that some kind of liberalisation of abortion is not unwarranted, under the existing circum- stances. The three grounds mentioned in the objects and reasons are good enough, in my opinion, to enlarge the scope of legal abortions. To fio beyond these grounds is to my mind, now unjustifiable.

Unfortunately, an attempt is made in the Bill to use this as a family planning measure by introducing Explanation II in sub Section (2) ol Sections 3. If abortions are regarded as a part of family planning I have no doubt that the basis of the entire edifice of family planning will col- lapse. Let me make it clear that it is not mjy personal view. My view is fortified by eminent medical men who tendered evidence before the Committee. Dr. S. B. Anklesaria, President of the Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India, Bombay and Dr. B. N. Purandare another representative of that Federation are definite that abortion should not be resorted to as a family planning method, since it under- mines the scheme of family planning and encourages abortions which are more risky than is ordinarily imagined. Of course, they said it may Hot lead to such consequences if the woman is to be compulsorily steril- ised in case of abortion after the birth of two or three children. In view; of our present constitutional provisions to make sterilisation compulsory is not permissible. Hence I am of opinion that Explanation II in sub- section {2) of Section 3 should be deleted.

I' have no doubt that liberalisation of abortion in the case of un- married woman tends to loosen the morals and therefore I would like to suggest that appropriate provisions should be incorporated in the Bill by which unmarried woman should be prevented from undergoing abor- tioft except in cases of rape and danger to life.

In- cases of rape it is enough under the Bill if the woman alleges rape and the pregnancy can be terminated with impunity. I should think that there should be a Committee of persons appointed by the Govern- ment to find whether the pregnancy is the result of rape. This view is fortified not onljy by the opinion of some witnesses but also by the lawa obtaining in countries like Denmark.

Another change I wanted to make is that two Registered Medical Practitioners are necessary to terminate the pregnancy even in cases where the length of pregnancy does not exceed 12 weeks. While con- ceeding that termination of pregnancy before 12 weeks is relatively •peaking less risky than the termination after 12 weeks it is not safe in my opinion to entrust the operation to only one Registered Medical Practitioner. Any emergency may arise during the operation. Because it is an abdominal operation in an invisible region at least to minimise risks and safeguard against any possible complications the presence of two registered medical practitioners is highly necessary. It Is irresponsi- ble to risk the life of a pregnant woman and every possible precaution and safeguard ought to be taken.

Un eugenic grounds provisions is made in item 2 01 clause I 01 section 3 for medical termination of pregnancy if the doctor or doctors opined that there is a substantial risk, that if the child were born he would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. From the evidence tendered it i& clear that excepting some cases it is not easy to foresee whether the child to be born will be an abnormal one. It is not safe to entrust the decision to the registered medical practitioner or practitioners who undertake operations. I should think that a provision will have to be made through the Bill for the constitution of an expert Committee to decide the issue.

During the consideration stage of the Bill by the Joint Committee I gave notice of some amendments which were accepted by the honour- able Shrl B. S. Murthy for which I am grateful to him. I would like to urge once again upon the Government to consider the various sug- gestions put forward by me in this minute of dissent and introduce appropriate amendments.

K. P. MALLIKARJUNUDU.

n

Having heard the scholarly thesis and reasons both of specialists, medical men and social workers, I am ever more convinced that the Bill namely Termination of Pregnancy through surgical treatment or through any artificial means is harmful and will not serve the purpose which it aims to fulfil. Apart from the reasons that are influenced by my religious convictions, I have been reinforced in my conclusions con- sequent on expert and convincing evidence tendered by eminent medical authorities and gynaecologists.

The one aspect that kept me ever vigilant in the course of our enquiry relates to the question whether we are justified to put an end to a Ufa just impregnated, but has no voice. The argument that the life cells do not come into existence till after 12 or 20 weeks, in my opinion, la spurious and has been challenged by medical authorities. It has been unequivocally and categorically expressed that the termination of preg- nancy even at the earliest stage is nothing short of murder. We are terminating a life at a certain stage and we should be honest to own that we are putting an end to life of a human specie by unnatural means.

The serious aspect dealt with in the course of enquiry, indicated that thia artificial method—surgical termination—invariably affects the health of the mother. It is possible that the treatment may afford an immediate solution oil a problem, but the complication it sets in, continues and exhibits itself in various forms and physical complaints to the mother.

Our standards of ethics and morality have sprung from our religious convictions and sanctions. As a matter of fact, we nave to accept that evolution and human civilisation owes completely to religions and to those basic beliefs that have shaped human conduct from time imme- morial. It is not possible to reconcile ourselves to such theories that we could solve problems of human lives by artificial interference with nature. As a Muslim, I have to submit myself implicitly to the Will of the Supreme Being, who is AH Wise and knows best. It is His Will that procreation takes place and who are we to interfere into His domain?

Apart from my own convictions and beliefs, we belong to a country that has produced great savants, saints and rishis. Their teachings have set up a pattern of society that is our pride. The doctrine of Ahimsa repeated bjy Gandhiji is there before us that reminds our ancient culture, and hence my opposition to the Bill is based both on medical aa well as on cultural grounds.

I would like to make it clear that my conclusions have obtained con- currence of such eminent authorities like Dr. Marikar and Dr. D. Kulan- day. Dr. Marikar s authority is rather unique. Besides being a reputed gynaecologist, she was an Administrator and had the portfolio of family Planning under her jurisdiction. Her opposition to the Bill was for very rational reasons, which should convince the Committee. She maintained that surgical treatment for abortions conducted even by ex- perts and specialists involves certain amount of risk, with ultimate danger to the health of the parent. She was emphatic that we are absolutely unprepared to deliberate such a measure since we totally lack in adequate equipment in major number of. hospitals and dispensaries. To think of such a measure with such lack of equipment and untrained personnel, might in her view,—prove more harmful and could never be expected to secure the objective which is sought for by the Bill. On the contrary, she was right in her conclusion that instead of solving the issue by medical termination of pregnancy, the measure would further complicate and the parent will be landed into complications and miseries for life.

Another aspect that was emphasised by some of the witnesses was that this Bill will liberalise the process, giving an opportunity to un- scrupulous persons and illeterate dais to openly indulge in the practice of playing with human lives, specially lured by economic considerations. Above all, this measure will further sink and denigrate our moral standards.

I therefore dissent and oppose the passage of the Bill namely Termi-

nation of Pregnancy through surgical treatment.

S. A. KHAJA MOHIDJEEN.

Bill No. XXn-B of 1969

THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY BILL, 1969

( AS REPOTTED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE)

[Words aide-lined or under-Uned indicate the amendments suggested by the Committee; asterisks indicate omissions.']

•

BILL

to provide for the termination of certain pregnancies by registered mcdi"

eal practitioners and for matters connected therewith or incidental

thereto.

B* it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows: —

1. (1) This Act may be called the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1970.

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Shoi

title

ezt"

and

com.

men

(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, bv notificatlonTnTEfi" Official Gazette, appoint.

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

Defini-

tion*.

(a) "guardian" means a person having the care of the person oi a minor or a lunatic; • * •

(b) "lunatic" has the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the

4 of 1012.

Indian Lunacy Act, 1912;

lJ of 1875.

(c) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, Is to be deemed not to hava attained his majority;

i"a

(d) "registered medical practitioner" means a medical practi- tioner who possesses any recognised medical qualification as denned in clause (h) of section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, * whose name has been entered in a State Medical Register and who has such experience or training in gynaecology and obstetrics as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.

40 "t I860

When

pregnan-

3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code, a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence undei that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any preg- nancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,—

(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve may b* termina- ted by registered medical practi. tfontro.

weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or

(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks

but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered

medical practitioners are,

of opinion, formed in good faith, that—

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or

mental health; or

(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Explanation I.—Where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such preg- nancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

Explanation II.—Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

(3) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would Involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2). account may be taken oi the pregnant woman'f actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.

(4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age of

eighteen years, or, who, having attained the age of eighteen years, is a

lunatic, shall be terminated except with the consent in writing of her

guardian.

(b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be

terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.

4. No termination of pregnancy shall be made in accordance with this

Act at any place other than—

(a) a hospital established or maintained by Government, or

Placn whera pregnant? may be termina- ted.

(b) a place for the time being approved for the purpose of this

Act by Government.

Sections a and 1 whea not t* 5. The provisions of section 4, and so much of the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 3 as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two registered medical practitioners, shall no1 apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practi- tioner in a case where he is of opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is Immediately necessary to save the

life*** of the pregnant woman.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, so much of the provi- lions of clause (d) of section 2 as relate to the possession, by a registered nedical practitioner, of experience or training in gynaecology and obate xics shall not apply.

6. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official

gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Pwww to make rulw.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the fore joing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following natters, namely: —

(a) the experience or training, or both, which a registered medi cal practitioner shall have if he intends to terminate any pregnancj under this Act; and

(b) such other matters as are required to be, or may be, pro

vided by rules made under this Act.

(3) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shal be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parlia tnent while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which maj be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if, befon the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately Eollowing, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule 0] both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall there after have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as th< ;ase may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shaT be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done undei ihat rule.

Sic. 2] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAOKDINARY 889

7. (1) The State Government may, by regulations,—

Power to mtthe refuta- tions.

(a) require any such opinion as is referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3 to be certified by a registered medical practitioner or practitioners concerned, in such form and at such time as may be specified in such regulations, and the preservation or disposal of such certificates;

(b) require any registered medical practitioner, who terminates a pregnancy, to give notice of such termination and such other infor- mation relating to the termination as may be specified in such regulations;

(c) prohibit the disclosure, except to such persons and for such purposes as may be specified in such regulations, of notices given or information furnished in pursuance of such regulations.

(2) The notice given and the information furnished in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be given or furnished, as the case may be, to the Chief Medical Officer of the State.

(3) Any person who wilfully contravenes or wilfully fails to comply with the requirements of any regulation made under sub-section (1) shall be liable to be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.

8. No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any registered medical practitioner for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.

rProtec- tionof action taken in good

B. N. BANERJEE,

Secretary.

PRINTED BY THE GENHtAL MANAGER. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, MINTO BOAD,

JOtW DELHI AND PUBLISHED BY THE MANAGER OP PUOT TP * TT""