The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the decision to prescribe diagnostic tests such as CT or MRI scans is a matter of professional medical judgment and cannot be dictated by a patient. This ruling was part of the case Arun PK v State of Kerala, presided over by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Background and Court Ruling
The case arose when a retired Indian Air Force personnel filed a plea seeking a directive for the General Hospital at Ernakulam to conduct specific diagnostic tests, including CT or MRI scans, for his medical condition. The petitioner alleged that despite experiencing severe pain and abnormal sensations in his head, the medical professionals at the hospital did not properly examine him or recommend the necessary diagnostic tests.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, in his ruling, emphasized that the prescription of diagnostic tests is based on the medical discretion of a doctor. He stated, “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.”
Lack of Evidence and Petition Dismissal
The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any evidence to confirm that he had consulted a doctor at the hospital. Furthermore, the identity of the doctor he claimed to have consulted was not disclosed, making it difficult to substantiate his claims of being denied proper treatment.
In response to the petition, the State argued that the petitioner had only an outpatient ticket and no further documentation to prove a consultation with a doctor. The State maintained that diagnostic tests are typically prescribed only after a thorough examination and diagnosis by a medical professional, and the hospital staff was willing to treat the petitioner if he approached them.
More Read
Based on these observations, the High Court accepted the State’s submissions and dismissed the plea, finding no merit in the allegations of treatment deficiency. The legal representation for the petitioner was provided by Advocates Swetha P Dileep and Johnson MM, while Government Pleader Anirudh Kadavil represented the State.
This ruling underscores the importance of relying on medical expertise and highlights the limitations of patient demands in clinical decision-making.
