Madras High Court dismisses doctors' plea against bond agreement
- In Reports
- 03:51 PM, Apr 27, 2024
- Myind Staff
In a recent ruling, Justice S M Subramaniam of the Madras High Court dismissed petitions filed by three doctors. The petitions challenged the proceedings of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, which appointed them as Assistant Surgeons based on a bond agreement under relevant rules. The petitions were filed by S Sahana Priyankaa and two others.
The petitioners argued that their service during the COVID-19 pandemic should count towards the total two-year service required by the bond conditions. However, the government advocate stated that the government had reduced the service requirement to one year through a Government Order dated October 27, 2023, for students in similar situations. Therefore, the petitioners must fulfill one year of service in a Government Medical College and Hospital as per the bond conditions.
The judge emphasised the government's aim to ensure that doctors who receive subsidised Post Graduate training serve the underprivileged. A bond requiring service to the poor and needy patients was obtained from candidates upon admission to ensure the utilization of their expertise for the benefit of the community.
The candidates, being qualified medical practitioners, signed the bond after thorough consideration of its terms. The judge expressed concern that allowing such disregard for the bond would set a precedent detrimental to public interest.
Many candidates failed to fulfill their obligation under the bond, either by not working in government institutions or by not repaying the bond amount, despite brief periods of employment.
The judge criticised the candidates for violating bond conditions, resulting in a shortage of doctors in government medical institutions in Tamil Nadu. This deprived poor patients of necessary treatment, contravening their right to healthcare under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The judge emphasised the government's duty to provide medical care to the needy through government hospitals. Refusal by these trained doctors to work in such hospitals infringed upon the fundamental rights of impoverished patients.
The judge urged doctors to align their conduct with regulations set by the Medical Council of India and the government, considering the noble nature of the medical profession. Additionally, the judge highlighted taxpayers' investment in the candidates' postgraduate medical education.
The judge criticised the government's decision to reduce the bond period from two years to one, stating that it was unjustified. The judge emphasised that since the petitioners had willingly signed the bond and agreed to its terms and conditions, they were not entitled to seek further concessions for reducing the stipulated period.
Therefore, they were obligated to fulfill their service commitment in Government Medical College and Hospitals according to their appointment orders. Upon completion of the stipulated period, the authorities would decide on the appropriate course of action.
Image source: The Economic Times
Comments