Courts cannot interfere with medical decisions taken by Speciality Doctors: Madras HC denies relief to woman alleging medical negligence
Madras High Court
Chennai: "The High Court cannot interfere with such decisions taken by the Speciality Doctors for providing treatment," the Madras High Court recently held while refusing to grant relief to a woman alleging medical negligence. Further, noting that right to life includes right to avail decent medical treatment, the High Court said discrimination in treating patients at any government hospital across the State is impermissible and such an act is unconstitutional.
Justice SM Subramaniam clarified that the woman (petitioner) can not expect preferential treatment for her child as there are other children who are taking treatment in the Government Hospital.
However, he directed the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare department, to provide continuous treatment to the child by following medical protocol and extending the best medical facilities available.
The court was hearing a petition filed by K Mubeena Banu, 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 and sought a compensation of Rs 25 lakh.
She alleged 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 called “Truncus Arteriorsus Type-1”.
The petitioner 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.
However, 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 allegedly denied treatment and directed her to leave the hospital informing that there was no scope of life to the child.
Thereafter, she visited private hospitals to assess the status of the child, where the doctors rendered that the surgery procedures should have been advised within 4 to 6 months as per protocol. Since the child has crossed that age, it is not viable to treat the disease.
Resultantly, she filed a writ petition in 2017, after which a team of expert doctors was constituted to examine the child.
Considering the arguments, the Court opined that scope of writ of mandamus for grant of compensation cannot be expected. It said that the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts regarding the medical negligence or otherwise. It observed;
"The High Court cannot act as an expert body with reference to the medical terminology and expert opinion of the speciality Doctors for treating patients are final unless the contrary is proved. Trial natured proceedings cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
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.
"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.
The High Court cannot interfere with such decisions taken by the Speciality Doctors for providing treatment. Presuming there is a medical negligence, the parties are bound to approach different Forum and not the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court proceeded to conclude that it could not interfere further in the matter. It noted;
"As medical Professionals, they are thriving hard and providing treatment to the child. When the Doctors are treating the son of the petitioner 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 number of children also, taking treatment in the Government Hospitals. 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. So far the petitioner has enjoyed special privilege in the Hospital with the assistance of the team of Doctors constituted by this Court. 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."
However, the court said that;
"The petitioner can avail the medical facilities available in the Government Hospitals on par with other children, who all are taking treatment in the Speciality Hospitals. This Court is confident on Speciality Doctors and trust that they will provide best treatment to all the patients, who all are admitted in the Government Hospitals."
Further, regarding the compensation, the Court directed the doctors to provide continuous treatment to the child by following the medical protocol and by extending best available medical facilities, and eventually dismissed the plea.
To view the original order, click on the link below:
