No Person Should Be Denied Quality Medical Treatment On Economic Ground, State's Duty To Cater Heath Needs Of All: Madras High Court

While dealing with a case relating to the bond period of PG Doctors, the Madras High Court stressed that a poor person, who is unable to afford paid treatment should not be treated differently. The court added that while all medical services could not be rendered free of cost to the citizens, the goal of a welfare state must be to move towards affordable and easily accessible healthcare to all of its citizens. Justice SM Subramaniam added that the postgraduate doctors' plea to count services rendered during the COVID-19 period under their bond policy was unsustainable. The court noted that during such an immense crisis, individuals from different wings of the government came forward and rendered invaluable services and to use this period of selfless service as a way of out-of-bond police was unjustifiable and unacceptable. “It was a period were the country witnessed immense crisis. It was a period of test to the humanity. And many people suffered innumerable losses. But to use this period of selfless service as a way out of the bond policy is utterly unjustifiable and unacceptable. It was a time when people from different walks of lives contributed their services in their own way and the frontline workers like aforementioned risked their lives in the process,” the court observed. The court added that it was witnessing a trend where the students initially agreed to sign the bond but after completing their post-graduation, tended to retract and approach the court challenging the bond. The court observed that the prime object of the medical profession was to render service to humanity and the doctors could not adopt a pick-and-choose attitude while treating patients. The court further observed that through the bond scheme, the government was able to address various layers of difficulty. The court noted that firstly, the Government pooled in enormous financial resources for each student thereby ensuring that the right of access to higher education is not denied to any section of the society. Secondly, the court noted that since the government-run hospitals and other healthcare centers needed specialized doctors, these institutions would get an opportunity to provide affordable super specialty treatment to economically vulnerable sections of society through the bond scheme. Thirdly, the court noted that by providing valuable services to the people, the PG doctors would be performing the greatest service to humanity. Thus, the court noted that the bond policies played an important role through which the government could seep into the most vulnerable contributors of the economy and be able to provide quality healthcare services. In the present case, two PG Doctors had approached the court to treat their period of service during the COVID-19 pandemic as part of the two-year mandatory service under the bond scheme. The State opposed the plea and argued that the PG students were bound to attend patients even while undergoing the course and such service was part of their duty. The Government also informed that the State had, through a Government Order, already reduced the bond period from two years to one year, and thus the petitioners had to complete the one-year service in any of the Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals in compliance with the bond condition. The state also argued that the candidates were well-qualified registered medical practitioners with adequate knowledge and had signed the bind after carefully reading and understanding it. Agreeing with this, the court observed that the petitioners were not entitled to claim any concession for further reduction of the bond period and were bound to service in Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals as per the appointment order in compliance with the conditions of bond. The court, thus dismissed the plea.It should also be noted that a coordinate bench of Justice GR Swaminathan had taken a contrary view and held that the period of Covid-19 duty be set off against the compulsory bond period. Though at the time, the court was made aware of the order where the period was not treated as part of the bond period, the Judge had noted that the first bench of Madras High Court had also taken a view to treat covid duty as part of bond period. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Vijaya Ragavan Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan Government Advocate Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 Case Title: B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others Case No: W.P. Nos.6432 & 6434 of 2024Click here to read/download the judgment

No Person Should Be Denied Quality Medical Treatment On Economic Ground, State's Duty To Cater Heath Needs Of All: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

No Person Should Be Denied Quality Medical Treatment On Economic Ground, State's Duty To Cater Heath Needs Of All: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers