IMPORTANT POINT
The MCI has got the power to conduct a surprise inspection to find out whether the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI have been rectified or not, especially when the College submits a compliance report. Surprise inspection naturally contemplates no notice.

Headnote:Indian Medical Council Act, 1956- Section 10A and Section 38(b) - Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. Regulation 8 -Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study- Verification by conducting physical inspection by the team of inspectors of the MCI- The MCI has got the power to conduct a surprise inspection to find out whether the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI have been rectified or not, especially when the College submits a compliance report. Surprise inspection naturally contemplates no notice, if the notice is given in advance, it would not be a surprise inspection and will give room for the College to hoodwink the assessors by springing a surprise, by making perfect what was imperfect. (Para 18)
        MCI is duty bound to cancel the request if fundamental and minimum requirements are not satisfied or else College will be producing half-backed and poor quality Doctors and they would do more harm to the society than service. (Para 20)
        Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Part II)- Rule 8(3)(1)- It provides for only an "opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies". Compliance report is called for only to ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed out were rectified or not. If the MCI is not satisfied with the manner of compliance, it can conduct a surprise inspection. After that, no further time or opportunity to rectify the deficiencies is contemplated, nor further opportunity of being heard, is provided. (Para 19)
       Facts of the Case :
        The Board of Governors decided to conduct a surprise inspection for renewal of permission to admit students in the medical college by a team of two doctors. The Inspection Team was directed to verify as to whether the College had rectified the deficiencies by looking to the compliance report as well as to verify the credibility of a complaint received against the College. Surprise inspection was conducted by the Team. The Board of Governors, however, having come to know about the gross deficiencies pointed out by the MCI Team in its surprise inspection report decided to reject the renewal of permission granted for the academic year 2013-14.
       Findings of the Court :
        The infirmities pointed out by the Inspection Team are serious deficiencies and the Board of Governors of the MCI rightly not granted approval for renewal of permission for the 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14.
       Result : Writ Petition (C) No.590 of 2013 allowed and IA No.2 of 2013, filed in SLP(C) No.28480 of 2012, disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are, in these cases, concerned with the legal validity of the approval granted by the Medical Council of India (for short “the MCI”) dated 15th July, 2013 for renewal of permission for admission of the third batch of 150 M.B.B.S. students at Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital (for short “the College”) for the academic year 2013-14. The above mentioned College was established during the year 2011-12 and it admitted 150 M.B.B.S. students for that year. Renewal of permission for the second batch was sought for the academic year 2012-13. The MCI carried out an inspection on 19/20th April, 2012 and noticed various deficiencies and, in addition, one fake faculty was also presented before the Inspection Team. Copy of the assessment report was placed before the Board of Governors of the MCI. The Board of Governors, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 20.6.2012 to the faculty, stating as follows:

“Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital, Pathankot was assessed on 19th and 20th April, 2012 by Assessors of MCI and you have been shown as Associate Professor in the Department of Chest & TB. It was declared in the declaration form submitted to MCI by the College authorities of Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital, Pathankot that you have joined the college on 07.06.2011 and have joined the college on 07.06.2011 and have been working in the department of Chest & TB since then.

Simultaneously, you were produced before the assessment team of MCI on 20th and 21st April , 2012 at S.N. Medical College, Agra as Associate Professor in the Department of Chest & TB and it was declared in the declaration form submitted to MCI that you have joined in the college on 19.04.2012.

Since, it is clear that you have been working at both the medical colleges simultaneously, you are required to explain as to why action be not taken against you for the above said misrepresentation.

You are therefore directed to appear before the Secretary, Medical Council of India on 25.06.2012 along with your explanation failing which Council would be free to initiate action as deemed fit including cancellation of registration.”

2. MCI also sent a letter dated 22.06.2012 to the Medical College stating that the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Team of the MCI on 19/20 April 2012 were of serious nature and, hence, Board of Governors had decided not to renew the permission to admit 2nd batch of students, however, the Medical College was given an opportunity to present their case on 25.06.2012.

3. The College, in response to the letter, sent a compliance report dated 23/25-06.2012. The Board of Governors of the MCI, after considering the assessment report, nature of deficiencies and the explanation submitted by the College in the personal hearing, finally decided not to grant renewal of permission for admitting fresh batch of 150 M.B.B.S. students for the academic year 2012-13. Communication dated 27.06.2012, in this regard, was sent by the MCI to the College.

4. The College then filed Writ Petition No.12368 of 2012 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the order dated 27.06.2012 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decision taken by the Board of Governors of the MCI on 22.06.2012 and 27.06.2012 and also for a direction to admit the second batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2012-13. The learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim order on 02.08.2012 directing the MCI to conduct another inspection to assess the deficiencies pointed out earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the MCI filed LPA No.1228 of 2012 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The LPA was disposed of by the Division Bench on 10.09.2012 nullifying the decision of the Board of Governors of the MCI dated 29.05.2012 and directed a fresh inspection after giving an opportunity of hearing to the College and it was permitted to place all materials before the Inspection Team. Aggrieved by the same, the MCI preferred Special Lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 854

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAK.S. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Sikri, JJ.Manohar Lal Sharma – PetitionerVersusM.C.I. and others – RespondentsWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.590 OF 2013 With I.A.No.2 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28480 of 2012Decided On : 12-09-2013

IMPORTANT POINT The MCI has got the power to conduct a surprise inspection to find out whether the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI have been rectified or not, especially when the College submits a compliance report. Surprise inspection naturally contemplates no notice.

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Manohar Lal Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
M.C.I. and others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.590 OF 2013 With I.A.No.2 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28480 of 2012
Decided On : 12-09-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
The MCI has got the power to conduct a surprise inspection to find out whether the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI have been rectified or not, especially when the College submits a compliance report. Surprise inspection naturally contemplates no notice.