Madras HC Rejects Plea Against Bond Agreement For Doctors

In a recent order, Justice S M Subramaniam dismissed the petitions filed by S Sahana Priyankaa and two others.

Counsel for the petitioners contended they have served during covid-19 pandemic period. Therefore, the said period was to be reckoned for calculating the total period of two years of service to be rendered as per the bond conditions.

The government advocate submitted that considering the claim of many such students, the government itself has reduced the period from two years to one year by a G.O dated October 27, 2023. Therefore, the petitioners have to complete one year of service in any Government Medical College and Hospital in compliance with the bond conditions.

The judge said it was natural that the government desires to ensure that these doctors, who have undergone Post Graduate training at a very low cost, serve the poor and the needy. 

The public have the right to expect the specialists to utilise their service during their training for the benefit of the sick, poor and the needy. To ensure that the services of trained Post Graduate Doctors were made available to the poor and the needy patients, a bond signed by the candidates with three sureties was obtained from the candidates at the time of their admission. 

The candidates were well qualified registered medical practitioners with adequate knowledge and only after carefully reading the bond and understanding it and after being fully aware of the terms and conditions have they signed it.

The judge said it was believed that such an attitude of the doctors, if allowed, will encourage the attitude of not paying attention to those poor people at whose expense they have been educated, which was opposed to public interest and unacceptable. In spite of executing the bond, many of the candidates after completing their course, neither worked in government institutions nor paid the bond amount but in some cases, after a few days of work. 

The very purpose of the government order was defeated by the candidates, who violate the bond conditions resulting in considerable shortage of doctors in government medical institutions across Tamil Nadu, thereby depriving treatment to the poor patients, the judge added.

The judge said providing decent medical treatment was an integral part under Article 21 of Constitution of India. The government was duty bound to provide treatment to the poor and needy, who were admitted in government hospitals. 

If these doctors after undergoing medical specialty courses, refused to work in government hospitals, were infringing the fundamental right of such poor and needy patients. 

Thus, such an approach of the doctors cannot be appreciated since the medical profession was a noble one and their conduct must be in consonance with the rules made by the Medical Council of India and the government. 

Tax payers' money was spent for the doctors to undergo Post Graduate Medical Courses. Poor people contribute by paying tax in various forms, the judge added.

The judge said even the government was not justified in reducing the bond period from two years to one .

The judge said in view of the fact that the petitioners have admittedly signed the bond and accepted the terms and conditions stipulated therein, they were not entitled to claim any concession for further reduction of period stipulated under the bond conditions. 

Therefore, they have to serve in Government Medical College and Hospitals as per the appointment order in compliance with the conditions and after completion of the period stipulated, appropriate decision may be taken by the authorities, the judge added.