Back
Patients Cannot Dictate Diagnostic Tests, Must Follow Doctor's Advice: Kerala High Court
In a decision that reinforces the boundary between patient expectations and medical judgment, the has ruled that a patient cannot demand specific diagnostic tests such as CT or MRI scans. The choice of investigations, the court held, lies exclusively within the of the treating doctor.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed a filed by a retired Indian Air Force veteran who sought a direction to the General Hospital, Ernakulam, to conduct a CT scan, MRI scan, or other tests for persistent head pain and abnormal sensations. The petitioner, Arun P.K., had claimed that doctors at the hospital failed to properly examine him and refused to order the scans without assigning any reason.
A Veteran’s Unheard Plea for Advanced Imaging
Arun P.K. approached the General Hospital, Ernakulam on , carrying an outpatient ticket (Exhibit P2). He described worsening health, alleging that despite explaining his symptoms, he was not adequately examined and the requested diagnostic tests were denied. Unable to obtain a diagnosis, he moved the High Court under , seeking a to compel the health authorities to ensure a specialist examination and the prescribed scans.
The State Government, represented by Government Pleader , stoutly opposed the petition. It submitted that apart from the outpatient ticket, there was no material to show that the petitioner had actually consulted any doctor. The government further emphasised that diagnostic tests are ordinarily prescribed only after a clinical evaluation and a provisional diagnosis — not at the patient’s behest.
No Evidence, No Remedy
The court noted a critical gap in the petitioner’s case: he had not even disclosed the name of the doctor he allegedly met, making it impossible to verify any deficiency on the part of the hospital. Justice Thomas observed:
“There are no materials to show that the petitioner had ever consulted any doctor. Not even the name of the doctor has been disclosed. Therefore, it is not possible for the respondents to identify or verify any alleged deficiency on their part.”
Because the plea rested on unsubstantiated allegations, the court held that no had been made out to exercise its .
The : Doctor, Not Patient, Decides
The core of the judgment lies in a clear delineation of the doctor-patient relationship regarding medical investigations. The court categorically rejected the notion that a patient can dictate which tests must be performed. Justice Thomas declared:
“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 of a doctor. A patient cannot dictate to the doctor that a particular scan ought to be prescribed.”
This observation underscores that clinical decision-making involves professional training, experience, and a stepwise diagnostic process. A demand for a CT or MRI scan, bypassing medical evaluation, undermines that process and could lead to unnecessary or even harmful investigations.
Door Left Open for Proper Treatment
Despite dismissing the , the court recorded a concession from the government that doctors at the General Hospital were willing to examine and treat the petitioner whenever he approached them. Accordingly, the court allowed Arun P.K. to seek medical evaluation at the General Hospital or any other appropriate facility, ensuring he could still receive a proper diagnosis — but only in accordance with medical advice.
The ruling has significant implications for patient rights and healthcare administration. While patients have a right to quality care, they cannot convert that right into a veto over clinical judgment. The decision may serve as a precedent to discourage writ petitions that attempt to micromanage medical choices, thereby preserving the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship.
Case Details:
WP(C) No. 22119 of 2026
Decided on
Counsel for Petitioner: ,
Counsel for Respondents: , Government Pleader
