[Rural Posting] "Doctors revered as Gods; let Gods not waste their time in litigation": Madras High Court refuses relief to 19 doctors

Doctors are revered as Gods by their patients and 'Gods' must not waste time litigating, the Madras High Court observed on Monday while refusing to interfere with the Tamil Nadu government's decision to post 19 doctors at upgraded and primary health centres as part of their compulsory rural posting [Dr Sri Hari Vignesh R v The state of Tamil Nadu]. .Justice Anand Venkatesh said that instead of litigating, the petitioners should utilise their specialisation and knowledge to help the poor and needy. .The Court was hearing a petition filed by nineteen doctors who had completed their post-graduation in various specialisations, and all of whom had been posted by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Upgraded Health Centres (UHCs), and Primary Health Centres (PHCs) across Tamil Nadu as part of the compulsory rural posting that was part of their bond. The petitioners, represented by advocate Suhrith Parthasarathy, argued that while they were not averse to rural postings, their being set "en masse" to UHCs and PHCs was "not commensurate" with their knowledge and expertise. The petitioners said that State-run UHCs and PHCs lacked infrastructure and facilities to provide specialised treatment. These centres primarily provided basic services and first aid to patients before referring them to specialised hospitals. Therefore, post graduate doctors need not be posted to such centres and instead, they be posted to State Hospital headquarters or other specialised hospitals. The State's counsel, Additional Government Pleader Stalin Abhimanu argued that the government intends to provide good health care for the poor and those residing in rural areas and hence, it was utilising the specialised services of post graduate doctors. Besides, the State had spent "a lot of money" towards the petitioners and other similarly placed doctors. Hence, their services must be utilised during the bond period, Abhimanu argued. He also said that the petitioners themselves had chosen the options of UHCs and PHCs during their counselling and were now "finding ways and means to avoid working" there..The Court noted that besides the petitioners, several other post graduate doctors, including in service doctors were posted to UHCs and PHCs and the petitioners were not being discriminated against. Instead, these doctors could help the government improve health care facilities in rural areas, the Court said. "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 High Court said. It also agreed that the State was indeed spending considerable amount of money on medical education and, therefore, doctors have the moral duty and legal obligation to serve the poor.The Court, therefore, directed the petitioners to report to duty at the centres allotted to them by February 10..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.