Accordingly, the Court held that doctors who offer such treatment as a routine clinical service fall short of the reasonable standard of care owed to patients. The Bench emphasised that every medical practitioner is duty-bound to exercise the level of care, skill and knowledge expected of a prudent professional in the same field. This standard, it said, is violated when practitioners administer interventions that lack credible scientific support or are expressly discouraged by recognised medical authorities.
The Court observed that a medical practitioner cannot be said to have exercised reasonable care if they administer a treatment that lacks credible scientific evidence of safety and efficacy, or where authoritative medical bodies have unequivocally advised against such interventions.
While examining the regulatory framework, the Bench considered the recommendations of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board of the National Medical Commission dated December 6, 2022, along with the Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Social Science Research, the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research, 2017, and the National Ethical Guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research.
The Court noted that these guidelines unequivocally state that stem cell therapy for autism is not recognised as a valid or relevant medical practice, owing to the absence of scientific backing and empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness.