JUDGMENT Sunil B.Shukre, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Pursis dated 02.12.2022 has been filed on record along with some documents. These documents, primarily in the nature of medical reports, give updates on the health condition of the petitioner only upto 29.10.2022 and not any further. These reports also do not take into consideration the advice given by the treating doctor at the time of giving discharge to the petitioner on 29.10.2022. The advice given by the treating doctor is as follows: ''Referred to AIIMS, Nagpur for Bronchoscopy and further treatment'' 4. There are few more words which are illegible from the medical reports already available on record (page No.65) and therefore, those words cannot be reproduced here. But, generally they seem to be referring to something about haemoptysis, which means, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a condition where patient suffering from it intermittently coughs out blood from his lungs. The medical reports filed along with the pursis do not consider the advice given by the treating doctor while giving discharge to the petitioner. The medical reports also do not give any opinion that the advice given by the treating doctor is wrong or un necessary or no more required. There is an admission, however, given by the Professor and Head Department of Respiratory Medicine, Government Medical College, Nagpur dated 28.10.2022 which seems to be material. He says that the condition of haemoptysis in the petitioner had started since last two days of 28.10.2022 and it was his observation that it used to be present only in the morning hours. The admission is thus indicative of presence of condition of haemoptysis manifesting itself early in the morning at least about two days prior to 28.10.2022. The medical reports, we must say, do not give any opinion about the probable cause of this condition and also do not provide for any solution to prevent it's recurrence in future. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is again experiencing the same condition.. 5. With the facts stated above, we are of the opinion that it would be necessary to have the Bronchoscopy of the petitioner done, wherever the facility to do it is available. 6. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is again experiencing the same condition.. 5. With the facts stated above, we are of the opinion that it would be necessary to have the Bronchoscopy of the petitioner done, wherever the facility to do it is available. 6. Shri.Dr.Pankaj Rannavare, Chief Medical Officer of respondent is personally present before the Court and he informed that the Bronchoscopy facility is also available at Government Medical College, Nagpur. 7. In view of above, we are inclined to allow this Writ Petition partly and it is allowed accordingly. 8. We direct the Professor and Head of the Department of Respiratory Medicine Government Medical College, Nagpur to get done Bronchoscopy of the petitioner at Government Medical College Nagpur and depending upon the result of Bronchoscopy, provide further medical treatment, if it is necessary in the opinion of the medical experts. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.