The Kerala government has decided not to take any action against Thiruvananthapuram District Collector Geromic George amidst a controversy surrounding his medical treatment. The controversy erupted when the collector received treatment for septicemia at his residence while patients waited in the busy surgery outpatient department (OPD) of a local hospital. The government’s assessment places the responsibility on the doctor and the healthcare organization involved, suggesting they made the treatment procedure controversial.
The Principal Secretary of the Health Department will soon submit a report on the incident, as requested by the Chief Secretary. The government believes that the Collector was not at fault and that the rush at the outpatient department should be seen as less significant compared to the official duties of the Collector. This perspective is shared by the IAS Association, which maintains that the doctor and the organization acted against service rules by disputing the treatment provided.
Citing the All-India Service Rules, specifically Rules 3 (1), 8 (1), and 8 (2), the IAS Association points out that members of the All-India Civil Service and their family members are entitled to receive medical treatment at their place of residence. This defense further strengthens the argument that the collector’s treatment at home was within legal and procedural bounds. The IAS Association also accused the doctor who publicized the details of the treatment of violating these rules.
When it became known that the collector was receiving treatment at home while the surgery OPD filled up with patients, the debate blew up. Critics argued that this demonstrated preferential treatment and raised questions about the fair distribution of medical resources. However, the government's stance is that the treatment was appropriate given the collector's official duties and the provisions of the All-India Service Rules.
Adding to the complexity of the situation is the fact that Geromic George has been recognized as the best collector in the state, an honor that underscores his significant contributions and public service. The government is concerned that taking action against such a high-performing official could bring disrepute to the administration. This concern is further elevated by the existing election code of conduct, which requires cautious handling of such matters.
The Collector has communicated his position to the Chief Secretary, improving his compliance with the rules. Meanwhile, the Principal Secretary of the Health Department is expected to present a detailed report on the incident soon. This report will likely address the procedural and ethical questions raised and provide a clearer picture of the events leading to the controversy.
(Input from various media sources)
(Rehash/ Susmita Bhandary/MSM)
