Government hospitals cannot discriminate in treating patients: Madras High Court

The right to life includes right to avail decent medical treatment and there can be no discrimination in treating patients in government hospitals, the Madras High Court recently observed. [K Mubeena Banu vs Tamil Nadu Health & Family Welfare Department].Justice SM Subramaniam that any discrimination in treating patients in government hospitals would violate the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. "Discrimination in treating the patients in the government hospitals is impermissible and any such discrimination would result in unconstitutionality. Medical facility is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. “Life” includes decent medical treatment. Therefore, all the patients are to be treated equally and equal medical facilities are to be ensured to the patients in the government hospitals," the Court said..The Court made the observation while refusing to grant ₹25 lakh as compensation to a woman who claimed that her son has been suffering from an ailment owing to medical negligence on the part of a Primary Health Centre (PHC) in the New Washermenpet area of Chennai.The plea was disposed of after the Court noted that there were disputed facts involved in the case which the High Court could not delve into the issue in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the judge also found that, pursuant to the Court's earlier orders, a team of specialty doctors had examined the child's condition and that the child's subsequent treatment was still continuing.Hence, the Court opined that the petitioner cannot expect anything more from government hospitals, where a large number of patients are being treated free of cost and "pertinently all the patients are to be treated equally, which is a Constitutional mandate.""Our great nation has got huge population and the government hospital is flooded with patients for treatment. Government hospitals are bound to provide treatment to all the patients visiting the hospitals," the bench observed. .The petitioner moved the Court alleging that the PHC had failed to perform a mandatory "anomaly scan" when she was pregnant with her second child. It was only after she delivered the child that she realised that her newborn son had facial deformities and a cardiac anomaly.She informed the Court further that she was referred to a government hospital that specialised in treating children, where her son was examined but no surgery was performed on time. Rather, she was only given medicines before eventually being told that there is no scope of life for the child. The doctor on duty also refused to treat the child, the petitioner claimed. This led her to file a writ petition in 2017, after which a team of expert doctors was constituted to examine the child. These doctors found that surgical intervention, if any, should have been performed before the child had crossed the age of six months. As such, they recommended that the child should continue to be treated with medicines..The Court found that it could not adjudicate on disputed questions of medical negligence in the present case. However, it noted that the child was receiving treatment from a team of specialty doctors and that this itself was a "concession" granted to her. The High Court proceeded to conclude that it could not interfere further in the matter. "Presuming there is a medical negligence, the parties are bound to approach a different forum and not the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ... As medical professionals, they are thriving hard and providing treatment to the child. When the Doctors are treating the child by following the medical protocol and ethics, there is no reason to interfere with such treatments or otherwise by the High Court. More so, the petitioner cannot expect any such preference only for her child as there are many children also, taking treatment in the Government Hospitals," the Court said. .The Court clarified that the petitioner can avail of medical facilities available in government hospitals on par with other children. It proceeded to decline the plea for compensation. The case was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to "provide continuous treatment to the child by following the medical protocol and by extending best available medical facilities.".Advocate PG Thiyagu appeared for the petitioner. Additional Advocate General P Kumaresan along with Additional Government Pleader S Ravichandran represented the State. Standing counsel Aswini Devi K appeared for the Specialty Hospital. .[Read Judgment]