Whether it is a doctor resisting scrutiny or a minister acting decisively, the beneficiary must always be the citizen in need
The ongoing dispute between the Goa Medical College (GMC) doctors and the State Health Minister has brought into sharp relief a troubling trend in public service delivery: the apparent subordination of public accountability to professional pride. The Health Minister’s recent intervention during a patient care situation in the casualty department has drawn criticism from sections of the medical fraternity. Yet, when examined through the lens of public interest, his actions may well have been necessary to ensure that healthcare remains a citizen-centric service and not an insulated professional domain immune to scrutiny.
The incident in question centres around the refusal of a Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to administer a Vitamin B12 injection in an emergency setting, on the grounds that it did not qualify as urgent. While clinical judgment must be respected, it cannot exist in a vacuum. In state-funded public health institutions, doctors are answerable not only to their patients but also to the public institutions that employ them and the constitutional functionaries charged with oversight. In such a framework, the Health Minister is not merely a spectator. He holds a constitutional responsibility to uphold the efficiency, accessibility, and responsiveness of the healthcare system.
The Minister’s criticism of the attending officer, though forceful, must be contextualised within a broader duty: to ensure that no patient is turned away from essential care. A democratic government does not function on the convenience of service providers but on the right of the citizen to timely and effective services. If a Minister, entrusted with the responsibility of the health portfolio, finds that a patient in need has been refused treatment without adequate justification, he is not only empowered but arguably obligated to intervene.
To characterise such intervention as "interference" is to misapprehend the nature of democratic accountability. Public hospitals are not sovereign islands of authority. They are institutions funded by the taxpayer and administered through the executive arm of the state. Ministers, as elected representatives, bear the weight of public expectation and have a duty to address service failures where they arise. If this duty involves publicly questioning lapses in judgment or inaction, it must not be misinterpreted as political overreach.
Furthermore, the immediate reversal of the oral suspension order by the Chief Minister should not be seen as a vindication of the doctor, but rather as a procedural course correction. While the correct disciplinary process must certainly be observed, it does not negate the legitimacy of the Minister’s concern. The procedural form may have faltered, but the substance of the intervention a call for accountability in the face of service denial remains valid.
It is worth noting that the response by the medical fraternity, particularly the mass mobilisation of support for the CMO and the issuance of an ultimatum for a public apology, appears disproportionate to the nature of the incident. That over 600 doctors and medical students would threaten service disruption over a matter of professional reprimand suggests that the protest may be fuelled by more than this single episode. It hints at a deeper resistance to administrative scrutiny, a resistance that undermines the public’s trust in the impartiality and transparency of the healthcare system.
Doctors employed at Goa Medical College (GMC), being government servants under the State of Goa, do not possess a legal right to strike. Their service is governed by the Goa Civil Services Rules, which prohibit strikes, mass casual leave, or non-cooperation during duty hours. The Supreme Court in T.K. Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003) held that government employees have no fundamental, legal, or moral right to strike, particularly when it affects essential public services like healthcare.
The call for an apology to be delivered not merely in words but physically, at the location where the incident occurred, betrays a concerning conflation of personal pride with institutional responsibility. Protest has its place in a democracy, but when invoked in response to a justified demand for public accountability, it risks transforming into a mechanism of defiance rather than reform.
Moreover, the ethical obligation of medical professionals to serve patients without interruption remains paramount. Strikes, even symbolic ones, jeopardise this commitment. The continuation of emergency services during the protest has been highlighted as proof of ethical consistency. But the very fact that the broader public may have had to contend with uncertainty, cancellations, or anxiety due to the mass dissent sends a troubling message: that professional solidarity may at times take precedence over patient care.
If the Minister’s actions prompt a broader conversation about the responsiveness of public health institutions, then the discomfort caused to some professionals may be a price worth paying. A democratic society must always ask: who bears the brunt of inaction? In this case, it is the patient often poor, often voiceless who suffers when systems fail or professionals err without consequence.
Institutional reform requires both internal introspection and external oversight. While doctors must be afforded dignity and respect, they must also accept that public accountability is an integral part of their role in a taxpayer-funded system.
Rather than escalating tensions, this episode should lead to the establishment of clear operational protocols both for ministerial inspection visits and for grievance redressal in clinical contexts. The object must be to align clinical independence with administrative accountability, not to pit them against each other.
Ultimately, the principle that must guide public service is this: prioritise patients, not pride. Whether it is a doctor resisting scrutiny or a minister acting decisively, the beneficiary must always be the citizen in need. Democratic authority is not diminished by oversight; it is validated by it. In the same way, professional integrity is not threatened by accountability; it is affirmed through it.
