Three physicians who disputed their appointment as Assistant Surgeons on the grounds of a bond arrangement under pertinent rules established by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine had their petitions denied by the Madras High Court. In a recent decision, Justice S M Subramaniam dismissed the applications that were submitted by S Sahana Priyankaa and two other people.
The attorneys for the petitioners contended that the two-year service requirement outlined in the bond terms should be applied to their duty rendered during the COVID-19 pandemic.In response to other similar accusations, the government decreased the service duration from two years to one year through a Government Order dated October 27, 2023, the government spokesperson countered. As a result, in order to complete the bond requirements, the petitioners had to serve for a year in any Government Medical College or Hospital.
The judge stressed that it was legitimate for the government to expect these physicians to treat the underprivileged populations because they underwent affordable postgraduate study.
The public rightfully expects specialists to use their skills to help the ill, impoverished, and in need. Upon admission, candidates, fully aware of the terms and circumstances, signed bonds with three sureties to guarantee this.
The judge voiced worry that if doctors failed to satisfy their bond duties, it would be in opposition to their professional responsibilities and the public interest to focus less on the impoverished. Despite signing bonds, many candidates either did not work at government institutions after completing their training or worked there for a very short time.
The judge emphasized that when doctors broke their bond obligations, the government’s goal of delivering high-quality healthcare was jeopardized, resulting in a shortage of medical experts at government facilities and depriving underprivileged patients of treatment.
Ensuring sufficient medical care is a cornerstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Treatment for the impoverished in government hospitals is a responsibility of the government.
Doctors’ refusal to serve in government hospitals after receiving specialized training is an infringement on the basic rights of patients in need. Since medicine is a noble profession, doctors should behave in accordance with legal requirements and governmental directives.
The judge pointed out that even the government’s shortening of the bond duration was not warranted, because taxpayer funds are used to fund doctors’ specialty training.
The petitioners are required to complete their service in government-run hospitals because they voluntarily signed the bond and all of its terms. Authorities have the authority to determine what to do next once the allotted time has passed.
SOURCE:
TIMES OF INDIA
