Orissa HC Verdict Is a Triumph for Medical Autonomy

In a vehement and long-awaited declaration of medical independence, the Orissa High Court has rejected criminal proceedings against Dr. Rabindra Kumar Jena on the grounds that doctors cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution for choosing more costly medications unless they are inferior in quality, harmful, or otherwise proscribed by the state authorities. It is not a judicial directive in isolation—it's an appeal to the health establishment to maintain at arm's length the continually shifting thin line between accountability and professional independence.

The complaint filed against Dr. Jena, a prominent haematologist and former HoD at SCB Medical College, Cuttack, was filed on allegations of having unduly favored certain drug companies by using costlier medication under the Odisha State Treatment Fund (OSTF). The fund, established to benefit indigent patients, was what was at issue—not that the medication prescribed was unsafe or would not work, but that they were not the cheapest options on the market.

The ruling of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra cut through the hubbub: issuing a costlier drug that is superior medically is not the same as misconduct. His observation that "if such kind of proceeding is encouraged, no doctor would ever try to treat any patient justly and fearlessly" gets to the very heart of the matter. Should a doctor be fearful of coming under legal fire for choosing a superior drug, even if the drug costs more?

Let's be honest—transparency in public healthcare is not an option. But this should not be at the cost of medical discretion. The quality of treatment, and not merely the cost, should decide on prescriptions. Justice Mohapatra was right in pointing out that the OSTF guidelines do not necessarily mandate less expensive medicines by default. Medicine is not a deal in the market—it's a matter of life and death.

The real failure here is in how prematurely the vigilance system criminalised a medical decision without expert scrutiny. As the court noted, no initial expert inquiry was made. The arbitrariness of the prosecution has the potential to create a chilling precedent for India's doctors.

This decision must be an eye-opener. In the interest of guarding public money, let us not criminalise the judgment of individuals who are professionally trained to preserve lives. Physicians must be made accountable—but not bound by suspicion.

Medicine cannot be practised in terror. Justice here has not merely defended a physician—it has saved the sanctity of patient care.