Factual Background 

In the case of K. Mubeena Banu v. Tamil Nadu Health & Family Welfare Department and others In the current instance, the petitioner’s son was born with facial malformations. After evaluation, it was discovered that the child has a heart abnormality. The child was admitted to the Institute of Child Health and the Hospital for Children after the hospital recommended them. The doctors had to determine whether to undergo cardiothoracic surgery as further therapy. The kid was nevertheless released with medication. The doctor on duty refused to treat the child at the petitioner’s subsequent visit for a checkup and told her to leave the hospital after explaining that the infant had no chance of survival. After that, a writ case was submitted to the Madras High Court seeking damages for the child’s declining health as a result of the doctor’s failure to provide prompt, appropriate care.

Analysis of Court Decision 

The Madras High Court ruled that a single judge bench presided over by Justice S.M. Subramaniam could not examine the mother and child’s care in a writ petition and could not serve as an authority on medical terms.

According to the Court, unusual instances require extra care, and any decisions regarding these therapies must be made after a thorough evaluation of the patient. The High Court is not permitted to influence such judgements. Additionally, a writ procedure cannot be used for a trial-natured action. According to Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, if a case of medical negligence exists, the parties must approach a different forum and not the High Court. The Court noted that discrimination in patient care will be unlawful because medical facilities are a crucial component of Article 21 of the Constitution under the umbrella of “Life.”The Court concluded as a result that all patients in government hospitals must be treated equally and provided with the same medical resources. Additionally, the Court stated that “any discrimination in the treatment of patients in government institutions would violate the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In government hospitals, all patients must receive equal treatment and access to the same medical facilities.

The Court noted that, in accordance with the court’s interim orders, a committee of expert doctors was assembled to care for the kid, and medical professionals were offering sophisticated and cutting-edge care at no expense. According to the ruling, “This is a concession provided in and of itself, and the petitioner cannot expect more from a Government Hospital wherein a large number of patients are treated.” As a result, the Court denied the petition and ordered the respondent to continue treating the kid as prescribed by medical guidelines and using the greatest facilities at their disposal.