Let not Gods waste their time in litigation: Madras HC slams 19 doctors who challenged Rural Service postings PHCs with no facilities
Chennai: Making a taunting observation that doctors should not waste their time in litigation, the Madras High Court bench recently dismissed the plea by 19 doctors who had challenged the rural service postings offered to them by the State Government in various Primary Health Centres (PHCs) and Upgraded Health Centres (UHCs) across Tamil Nadu.
While the doctors had claimed that UHCs and the PHCs lacked the required infrastructure for providing specialised treatment, the HC bench slammed these doctors and observed, "The PG doctors cannot be heard to say that they will work only if all the facilities are available. Let not Gods waste their time in litigation."
“The postgraduate doctors cannot take the stand that they will only work in hospitals with all facilities. If this stand is to be sustained, the services of most of the non-service (those who had not taken up government service after obtaining MBBS degree) postgraduate doctors cannot be utilised during the bond period,” the HC bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh further observed.
As per the bond executed at the time of their admission to Postgraduate medical courses, these doctors are liable to serve the compulsory bond postings offered to them after completion of their education. Accordingly, they had been posted by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at UHCs and PHCs across the State.
Also Read: Doctors seek exemption from Rural service, Telangana HC junks plea
However, these doctors opposed these postings and approaching the High Court bench, and it was submitted by the doctors that the type of work that is going to be allotted to the PG doctors must commensurate with the qualification and specialisation which they have achieved after undergoing the post graduation.
It was their grievance that they have all been en masse sent to various primary health centres across the Tamil Nadu when the appointments given to them was not commensurate with the qualification and specialization that has been attained by the doctors in the PG course.
The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are not averse to working in PHCs provided that there are facilities available, which are commensurate to their qualification and specialization.
It was contended that if the petitioners are sent to PHCs without any facilities, the petitioners will not be able to perform their area of specialization and it will be against the interest of not only the petitioners, but also the general public who will not be able to get the specialized treatment in the absence of any facilities.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State, Additional Government Pleader Stalin Abhimanu contended that the government intends to provide good health care for the poor and those who stay in the rural areas. Therefore, it was utilising the specialised services of the PG medical graduates.
Apart from this, the State counsel also pointed out that the Government had spent "a lot of money" for the education of the petitioner doctors and similarly placed doctors. Therefore, the State should utilise their services during the bond period.
At this outset, the Government pleader also submitted that the petitioners had selected the options of UHCs and PHCs themselves during their counselling and claimed that the petitioner doctors were now "finding ways and means to avoid working" there.
After taking note of the submissions made by both the parties, the HC bench also considered the fact that apart from the petitioner doctors, several other post graduate doctors, including the in service doctors had been posted in the UHCs and PHCs and there was no discrimination against the petitioners.
The court opined that these doctors could help for the betterment of health facilities in the rural areas and observed, "There are various instances where doctors with specialization have rendered their services in remote villages and rural areas without any facilities and they have paved way for creating new facilities for the poor people. This is the attitude with which the doctors are expected to render their services. The patients look at doctors who treat them like god when a precious life is saved and this Court expects doctors to maintain that standard and render service. The PG doctors cannot be heard to say that they will work only if all the facilities are available. “Let not Gods waste their time in litigation”."
The HC bench also took note of the fact that the State government had spent a lot for their education. Opining that the doctors having PG medical degree could always join the concerned PHCs and provide constructive suggestions to the State for upgrading the facilities in the interest of poor patients.
"The PG doctors must bear in mind that the State Government has spent a lot of money on them and their services are attempted to be utilized. These doctors, can always join the concerned UPHCSs/ APHCs and can help the Government/Health Department by giving their suggestions and increasing the facilities available in the concerned PHCs. That apart, a poor person in a village or a rural area must also get the services of a specialist. Even though the petitioners have completed their course, that does not mean that they have become specialist doctors and it takes a long period of practice to achieve specialization," observed the bench.
"These doctors getting exposed at the PHCs can gain a lot of experience to hone their skills. Even to perform well in the chosen field of specialisation, an overall experience in handling patients in distress during the initial period of practise helps the doctor grow with a strong foundation," added the bench.
"For further up-gradation of PHCs and APHCs, the State Government as well as the Medical Department require the inputs from the PG doctors to understand the type of facilities that should be enhanced in the concerned PHC. The PG doctors like the petitioners rather than finding excuses, must be more proactive in rendering their services and helping the poor and needy people in village and rural areas," further read the order.
Therefore, not finding any ground to interfere with the appointment/posting order issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine the HC bench dismissed the plea and directed the petitioner doctors to report to duty in the Centres allotted to them on or before 10.02.2023.
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rural-service-madras-hc-200856.pdf
Also Read: Rural area cannot be close to city: Madras High Court denies incentive marks to doctor
