Court Cannot Direct Doctors to Prescribe Specific Scans, Kerala HC Rules While Closing Ex-IAF Personnel's Writ Petition
Kerala High Court holds that diagnostic choices rest within a doctor's prerogative, not a patient's directions, while dismissing a writ petition seeking court-mandated CT and MRI scans.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has closed a writ petition filed by a retired Indian Air Force personnel who sought a court direction compelling the General Hospital, Ernakulam, to subject him to specialist examination and diagnostic tests including a CT scan or MRI. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, sitting singly, held on 13 July 2026 that no justiciable cause had been made out, and that a patient has no right to instruct a doctor to prescribe a particular diagnostic test. The judgment draws a clear line between a patient's access to treatment and a patient's ability to dictate the clinical course of that treatment.
What the Petitioner Sought from the General Hospital
Arun P.K., aged 39 years, a resident of Pulikkal, Malappuram, described himself as a retired Indian Air Force personnel suffering from severe pain and abnormal sensations in his head. He stated that his health was deteriorating and that he approached the General Hospital, Ernakulam, on 4 June 2026, obtaining an outpatient ticket — produced before the court as Exhibit P2 — for consultation. His Veteran Identity Card issued by the Indian Air Force was also placed on record as Exhibit P1.
The petitioner alleged that, despite consulting a doctor and explaining his symptoms, the doctor failed to examine him properly, did not diagnose his illness, and declined to recommend or conduct diagnostic investigations. He stated that this refusal was made without assigning any reason. On that basis, he moved this Court seeking a direction to the respondents — the State of Kerala, the Superintendent of the General Hospital, and the Medical Officer of the General Hospital — to ensure a proper medical examination by a competent specialist and to conduct a CT scan, MRI, or such other tests as a qualified specialist might deem necessary.
The Hospital's Position Before the Court
The Government Pleader, appearing for the three respondents, submitted upon instructions that apart from the outpatient ticket obtained by the petitioner, there was no record in the hospital to show that the petitioner had actually consulted any doctor. The name of the doctor allegedly consulted was not disclosed by the petitioner, making it impossible for the respondents to identify or verify the alleged deficiency.
The Government Pleader further submitted that, as a matter of ordinary medical practice, a doctor prescribes diagnostic tests only after examining the patient and arriving at a provisional diagnosis. The suggestion was that the petitioner's grievance, as presented, could not be verified and that the clinical sequence he demanded — tests first, examination as directed by him — inverted the standard process. The Government Pleader also submitted that the doctors at the General Hospital were ready to treat the petitioner whenever he chose to approach them.
The Court's Reasoning on Diagnostic Prerogative
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that no justiciable cause had been made out. The absence of any hospital record of an actual doctor consultation, and the failure to disclose even the name of the treating doctor, meant the alleged deficiency in care could neither be identified nor verified by the respondents.
The court went further, however, addressing the substantive question raised by the petition. It held that even if the factual premise were accepted, a patient cannot dictate to a doctor that a particular scan ought to be prescribed. Whether a CT scan, MRI, or any other diagnostic test is required is, in the court's words, “a matter within the diagnostic prerogative of a doctor.” The court stated plainly: a patient has to go by the advice of the doctor, not the doctor to abide by the ‘directions’ of the patient.
This reasoning proceeds from the nature of the doctor-patient relationship as one in which clinical judgment is reposed in the treating physician. A writ of mandamus, which compels a public authority to perform a specific act, cannot be deployed to override that clinical judgment and substitute a court's direction for a specialist's medical assessment. The petition in effect asked the court to mandate a clinical outcome — ordering specific tests — before any clinical evaluation had taken place or been properly evidenced. The court declined to do so.
Outcome
The writ petition was closed. The court noted the Government Pleader's submission that the doctors at the General Hospital, Ernakulam, are ready to treat the petitioner as and when he approaches them. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the petitioner may approach the appropriate hospital, including the General Hospital, Ernakulam, for a proper diagnosis of his alleged illness. No costs were imposed and no further directions were issued.