Justice SM Subramaniam of the Madras High Court emphasized that no individual should be denied quality medical treatment due to economic constraints. The court highlighted that while not all medical services can be free, a welfare state’s goal should be to provide affordable and accessible healthcare to all citizens.
The case revolved around postgraduate doctors seeking to count their services rendered during the COVID-19 pandemic towards their mandatory bond period. The court deemed this request unsustainable, noting the immense crisis and selfless service during the pandemic should not be used to circumvent bond policies. “It was a period of immense crisis, testing humanity, with many suffering significant losses. Using this period of selfless service as a way out of the bond policy is unjustifiable and unacceptable,” the court stated.
Justice Subramaniam observed a trend where students initially agree to the bond but later challenge it after completing their post-graduation. He reiterated that the primary objective of the medical profession is to serve humanity, and doctors should not selectively fulfill their duties based on convenience.
The court further elaborated on the significance of the bond scheme. Firstly, it ensures access to higher education for all sections of society by pooling financial resources for each student. Secondly, it provides government-run hospitals with specialized doctors, allowing them to offer affordable super-specialty treatment to economically vulnerable sections. Thirdly, it enables PG doctors to perform significant services for humanity.
In this case, two PG doctors requested that their COVID-19 service period be counted towards their two-year mandatory bond. The State opposed this, arguing that attending to patients during the course was part of their duty. The government also highlighted that the bond period had already been reduced from two years to one year via a government order, thus the petitioners were required to complete this one-year service.
The court agreed with the State, noting that the petitioners were not entitled to further reductions in the bond period and must fulfill their service in government medical colleges and hospitals. Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
However, it should be noted that a coordinate bench of Justice GR Swaminathan had previously taken a contrary view, holding that the period of COVID-19 duty should be set off against the compulsory bond period. Despite being aware of this, the court maintained its stance that the pandemic service period should not be treated as part of the bond.
Case Details:
- Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M. Vijaya Ragavan
- Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K. Tippu Sulthan, Government Advocate
- Case Title: B Anantha Lakshmi and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
- Case No: W.P. Nos. 6432 & 6434 of 2024
