The Kerala High Court has ruled that patients cannot demand CT or MRI scans, holding that decisions on diagnostic tests must be based on a doctor's medical judgment rather than a patient's request. In a judgment delivered on July 13, 2026, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed a petition filed by a retired Indian Air Force veteran who sought court directions for CT and MRI scans after alleging that doctors at General Hospital, Ernakulam, failed to properly examine him for persistent head pain and abnormal sensations.

Petitioner Arun P.K. approached the Kerala High Court after alleging that doctors at General Hospital, Ernakulam, failed to properly examine him or recommend CT and MRI scans despite his persistent head pain and abnormal sensations. He sought directions for a proper medical examination and diagnostic tests, including CT and MRI scans.

The State of Kerala submitted that, apart from the outpatient ticket, there was no evidence that Arun P.K. had consulted a doctor. The State further submitted that diagnostic tests are usually prescribed only after a doctor examines a patient and reaches a provisional diagnosis.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that petitioner Arun P.K. had neither identified the doctor who allegedly refused treatment nor produced evidence to show that he had actually consulted one.

The court noted, "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."

Finding no material to support the allegations, the court held that there was no basis for judicial intervention. It further emphasized that decisions on prescribing CT scans, MRI scans, or other diagnostic investigations rest with the treating physician and cannot be dictated by patients.

"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 diagnostic prerogative of a doctor. A patient cannot dictate to the doctor that a particular scan ought to be prescribed," Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed.

CT and MRI scans are valuable diagnostic tools, but they are not recommended for every patient with symptoms such as persistent headache or abnormal sensations. Doctors usually begin with a medical history and physical examination before deciding whether a CT or MRI scan is necessary.

The judgment aligns with this clinical approach, observing that decisions on diagnostic tests should be guided by a doctor's clinical judgment rather than a patient's request. Depending on the symptoms and examination findings, a doctor may recommend imaging only when it is likely to help identify the underlying cause. Unnecessary CT scans may expose patients to radiation, while both CT and MRI scans can sometimes reveal unexpected findings that lead to additional tests and costs.

Also see: Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Kerala Dental HoD in Student Suicide Case, Says Allegations Are "Inhuman"

Although the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition, it recorded the State's submission that doctors at General Hospital, Ernakulam, were willing to examine and treat the petitioner whenever he approached the hospital. Accordingly, the court permitted Arun P.K. to seek medical evaluation at the General Hospital or any other appropriate healthcare facility for a proper diagnosis.

Closing the case, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "Having regard to the above circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition... the petitioner may approach the appropriate hospital, including the second respondent, for a proper diagnosis of his alleged illness."

The judgment reiterates that while patients may discuss their concerns and treatment options with physicians, decisions on CT scans, MRI scans, and other diagnostic investigations ultimately rest on the treating doctor's clinical assessment.

References:

1. Kerala High Court. Arun P.K. v. State of Kerala and Others, W.P.(C) No. 22119 of 2026, judgment dated July 13, 2026.

(Rh/TP/MSM)