Undertrial prisoners entitled to be treated at private hospitals of their choice: Madras High Court

Observing that an undertrial prisoner is entitled to be treated at a private hospital if no prejudice is caused to anyone, the Madras High Court has permitted T. Devanathan Yadav, managing director of Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Nidhi Limited (MHPFNL) – facing a ₹600-crore default case involving 5,000 depositors – to undergo medical treatment at a private hospital for 10 weeks.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan ordered that the prisoner should name three private hospitals where he would prefer to be treated and that the government authorities concerned could choose one of them. It was made clear that he should be shifted to the hospital within a week, as he had to undergo two surgeries: one on his knee and another on the spine.

“We are not granting bail. We are only directing the prison authorities to shift the writ petitioner to a hospital. He continues to remain in custody. Instead of a prison cell, it will be a hospital room. There will be no other difference… During this period, the petitioner has to remain confined to the hospital premises. He can, at best, walk around. He cannot leave the institution where he has been admitted to,” the judges ordered.

Further, making it clear that the authorities concerned should deploy escorts at the hospital 24×7 in three or four shifts, the Bench said, the expenses towards the police escort and the medical treatment should be borne by the prisoner’s friend D. Arul Raman, as an association of the aggrieved depositors had contended that the prisoner could not be allowed to “enjoy” their hard-earned money which he had defaulted.

“The petitioner will not be permitted to use any mobile phone during this period (10 weeks of medical treatment). He can, of course, be visited by his friends and relatives. There will not be any restriction on this. It is also open to the prison authorities to stipulate any other condition which they deem fit,” the Division Bench said while allowing his plea to undergo medical treatment at a hospital of his choice.

Authoring the verdict, Justice Swaminathan said, when an undertrial prisoner was entitled to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his/her choice, the same would apply to consulting and getting treated by a medical practitioner, too. The fundamental right to life guaranteed under the Constitution would apply to undertrial prisoners as well, and it would not stop at the prison gates.

“If an undertrial prisoner is willing to bear the cost that may be incurred in the process, he need not be denied the facility. Of course, we do not acknowledge this as an absolute right. There could be cases when shifting an undertrial to a private institution may have security implications. But when no prejudice would be caused, an undertrial prisoner is entitled to seek treatment at the hands of a medical practitioner of his choice and in an institution in whose ambience he is more comfortable. The authority or the court, as the case may be, can restrict the period of such treatment,” the judge wrote.

He also said: “Right to life would include the right to get proper medical treatment. If a person is ill and if medical intervention is required, it has to be provided to him. If a person has no choice, then he has to accept whatever is provided in the given circumstances. But where there is an option, one would prefer to be treated by a medical practitioner of one’s choice. There is psychological element involved. If so and so is one’s family doctor, he or she would like to consult him first even if there are far better professionals available.”