Govt Hospitals Flooded With Patients; Court Cannot Interfere With Medical Decision Of Specialists: Madras High Court

"Hundreds of children are provided treatment in the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children. Our Great Nation has got huge population and the Government Hospital is flooded with patients for treatment. The Government Hospitals are bound to provide treatment to all the patients visiting the Hospitals. No doubt, speciality treatments are to be provided with reference to certain peculiar cases and such decisions are taken by the Speciality Doctors on assessment of patient," the court said.

Justice SM Subramaniam also observed that High Courts, under Article 226, cannot be expected to act as an expert body and pass directions for treatment as the same would amount to excess exercise of judicial review.

"Thus, it is for the Doctors to take a decision and continue the treatment by following the medical protocols. Contrarily, High Court cannot interfere with the opinion of the medical experts by acting as an expert body which is not desirable and it will lead to excess exercise of powers of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," Justice Subramaniam noted.

In the present case, the petitioner, Mubeena Banu, informed the court that she became pregnant and was continuously taking treatment at the Primary Health Centre. She submitted that she was referred and admitted to RSRM Hospital, Chennai for delivery and that after delivery, it was noted that the child was born with a cardiac anomaly called “Truncus Arteriorsus Type-1”.

She informed the court that the child was then referred to the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children for speciality treatment wherein the child was referred to take Echo Cardiogram. A Cardio Thoracic Surgery (CTS) was later recommended for further treatment.

The petitioner submitted that while she had taken her son to the institute after one month as directed by the institute and was waiting to get an opinion on the CTS, the physician who was on duty denied treatment and directed her to leave the hospital informing that there was no scope of life to the child. 

She also informed the court that when she had visited certain private hospitals to assess the status of the child, she was informed that the surgery procedures should have been advised within 4 to 6 months as per protocol and that since the child had crossed that age, it was not viable to treat the disease. 

It was submitted that the health of the child had deteriorated due to the negligence committed by the doctors at the Primary Health Centre who had failed to perform an anomaly scan at 18 weeks of pregnancy. It was further submitted that proper timely treatments were not provided to the petitioner during her pregnancy and to the child after birth. 

The court noted that the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children for speciality treatment had already constituted a committee of experts who are monitoring the child's treatment. The bench also noted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the court had also formed a committee to assess the situation of the child.

The court observed that since the doctors were already treating the child as per medical protocol and ethics, there was no reason for the court to interfere with the treatment. It added that the petitioner can not expect preferential treatment for her child as there are other children who are taking treatment in the Government Hospital. 

"Discrimination in treating the patients in the Government Hospitals are 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 added that the petitioner is already enjoying certain special privileges and even if there is medical negligence, the parties are expected to approach different forum and not the High Court under Article 226.

Thus, finding no reason for granting compensation, the court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent institutes to provide continuous treatment to the child.

Case Title: K.MubeenaBanu v. Tamil Nadu Health & Family Welfare Department and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 165

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.G.Thiyagu

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG,assisted by Mr.S.Ravichandran, AGP and M/s.Aswini Devi K., Standing Counsel