In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court emphasized that government hospitals must not discriminate in treating patients. The court made this observation while dismissing a compensation claim by a woman who alleged medical negligence at a Primary Health Centre (PHC).

The court stated that the right to life encompasses the right to receive decent medical treatment, and any discrimination in government hospitals would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Medical facilities are an integral part of the right to life, and therefore, all patients should be treated equally, with equal access to medical services.

The case involved a woman who claimed that her child suffered from an ailment due to medical negligence during her pregnancy and subsequent treatment at a government hospital. The court found disputed facts in the case and decided that it couldn't delve into the matter under a writ petition.

The court noted that specialty doctors had examined the child's condition as per their previous orders, and the child's ongoing treatment was being provided. Considering the large number of patients treated free of cost in government hospitals, the court emphasized the constitutional mandate to treat all patients equally.

The petitioner alleged that the PHC failed to conduct a mandatory "anomaly scan" during her pregnancy, leading to her son's facial deformities and cardiac anomaly. After being referred to a specialized government hospital, the child was only prescribed medication and eventually informed that there was no hope for the child's life. The petitioner claimed that the doctor on duty refused to treat the child.

A team of expert doctors was later appointed to examine the child's condition, recommending continued treatment with medication, as surgical intervention should have been done before the child turned six months old.

While the court couldn't adjudicate on the alleged medical negligence, it acknowledged that the child was receiving treatment from a team of specialty doctors, considering it as a concession granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the court concluded that further interference was unnecessary.

The court clarified that the petitioner's child should avail of the medical facilities available in government hospitals on par with other children. Consequently, the court rejected the plea for compensation, directing the concerned authorities to provide continuous treatment to the child according to medical protocols and with the best available facilities.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate PG Thiyagu, while the State was represented by Additional Advocate General P Kumaresan and Additional Government Pleader S Ravichandran. Standing counsel Aswini Devi K appeared for the Specialty Hospital.