

The Kerala High Court recently held that decision to recommend scans such as CT or MRI rests within the doctor's professional judgement and a patient cannot insist that a doctor should prescribe a particular diagnostic test [Arun PK v State of Kerala].
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by a retired Indian Air Force personnel who sought a direction to the General Hospital at Ernakulam to subject him to proper medical examination and conduct diagnostic investigations, including CT or MRI scans, for his medical condition.
The Court explained that the decision to prescribe diagnostic tests is a matter of medical judgment taken by a doctor and cannot be dictated by a patient.
"Even otherwise, a patient has to go by the advice of the doctor and not the doctor to abide by the 'directions' of the patient. Whether any particular type of scan is required or not is a matter within the diagnostic prerogative of a doctor. A patient cannot dictate to the doctor that a particular scan ought to be prescribed," the Court said.
It also noted that the petitioner had not produced any material to show that he had actually consulted a doctor at the hospital. He had not disclosed the identity of the doctor whom he allegedly met, making it impossible to verify his allegations that he had been denied proper treatment, the judge noted.
Thus, the Court dismissed his plea.
The petitioner moved the Court claiming he had been suffering from severe pain and abnormal sensations in the head.
According to him, he approached the General Hospital on June 4 but despite explaining his symptoms, the doctors failed to examine him properly and even declined to recommend or conduct the requested diagnostic tests without giving any reason.
Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions.
The State submitted that apart from an outpatient ticket issued to the petitioner, there was no record to show that he had consulted any doctor.
It was stated that diagnostic tests are ordinarily prescribed only after a doctor examines the patient and arrives at a diagnosis and that doctors at the hospital were willing to treat the petitioner whenever he approached them.
The Court accepted the State's submissions and held that there was no material to verify the petitioner's allegations of deficiency in treatment.
Hence, it dismissed the petition.
Advocates Swetha P Dileep and Johnson MM appeared for the petitioner
Government pleader Anirudh Kadavil represented the State.
[Read Judgment]