1. Dispute over renewal of permission for enhanced MBBS seat intake following inspections and findings of infrastructure deficiencies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 843
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
Medical Council of India – Appellant
Versus
The Principal KMCT Medical College & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8429 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19919 of 2018)
Decided On : 21-08-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
It is Open to the MCI to choose the manner of compliance verification and there is no fetter on second inspection by it.
It is Open to the MCI to choose the manner of compliance verification and there is no fetter on second inspection by it.
Subject
Medical Education - Medical College Inspection and Approval
Act Referred
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ACT: S.11(2)
Headnote
Medical education – Admission – Open to the Appellant-MCI to choose the manner of compliance verification – No fetter on second inspection – Decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered unless perverse. (Para 14, 15)
(2015) 10 SCC 19; (2017) 15 SCC 791; (2017) 16 SCC 249; (2013) 10 SCC 60 : 6 SCEC 578; (2016) 11 SCC 530 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The High Court directed the Appellant to recommend grant of permission to the Respondent No.1 College for admission of 150 seats in 1st year MBBS for the academic session 2018-19. The High Court also directed Respondent No.2 Union of India to issue a letter of permission on the basis of recommendation of the Appellant.
Finding of the Court:
No fetter on second inspection by MCI.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a regulatory body is prohibited from conducting subsequent verification inspections or bound by government suggestions to waive physical verification. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. The regulatory body possesses the discretion to conduct subsequent inspections to ensure minimum standards, and government suggestions do not restrict this statutory power. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. A statutory expert body is not prohibited from conducting subsequent inspections to verify infrastructure, nor is it limited to verifying only previously noted deficiencies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and appeal allowed. (Para 16 )
6. Can the Medical Council of India (MCI) conduct a second or subsequent inspection of a medical college?
Yes. The MCI is not prohibited from conducting subsequent inspections to verify if a college possesses the necessary infrastructure and resources to provide quality education, as it acts as a custodian of public interest. (Para 12 )
7. Is a compliance verification inspection limited only to the deficiencies pointed out in the initial inspection?
No. A verification inspection is not a limited remand; the regulatory body can inspect compliance with overall minimum standards and is not required to ignore other deficiencies perceived during the visit. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. Is the MCI bound by suggestions from the Union of India regarding the manner of compliance verification?
No. Suggestions from the government regarding the waiver of physical verification are not binding. The manner of verification is left to the discretion of the MCI. (Para 14 )
9. Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the findings of an expert body regarding medical college facilities?
Interference is permissible only when the college demonstrates jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity, or mala fide in the expert body's decision. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Leave granted.
1. The High Court directed the Appellant to recommend grant of permission to the Respondent No.1 – College for admission of 150 seats in 1st year MBBS for the academic session 2018-19. By the impugned judgment, the High Court also directed Respondent No.2 – Union of India to issue a letter of permission on the basis of recommendation of the Appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the MCI has filed this appeal.
2. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the College”) was granted permission to start a medical college for the academic year 2008-09 with an intake of 100 students. Thereafter, a Notification was issued under Section 11(2) of the MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ACT , 1956 granting recognition of the course. The College applied for enhancement of the intake of students from 100 to 150 for the academic session 2016-17. The Appellant recommended for grant of approval to increase the intake which was accepted by the Government of India. The application for renewal of permission with an enhanced intake of 150 students for the academic year 2017-18 was also considered favourably by the Appellant and Respondent No.2.
3. The College applied for renewal of permission for the 3rd Batch of admissions with the intake of 150 students for the year 2018-19. An inspection was conducted on 18th/19th September, 2017. The Executive Committee of the Appellant-MCI considered the Assessment Report pursuant to the inspection conducted on 18th/19th September, 2017 and noted the following deficiencies :
“1. CT Scan is single slice against minimum 16 slice required.
2. Examination Hall: Out of 2 Examination Hall available, 1 is actually an Auditorium which cannot be considered as Examination Hall; hence there is deficit of 1 Examination Hall.
3. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.”
4. In view of the above deficiencies, the Executive Committee of the MCI decided to recommend not to renew the request for permission to admit 3rd Batch of MBBS students against the enhanced intake of 150 students. The deficiencies found in the inspection conducted on 18th/19th September, 2017 were communicated to the College. The College was informed about a hearing to be conducted on 19th December, 2017. A representation was made by the College to the Hearing Committee which found that the two deficiencies pointed out appear to have been rectified on the basis of the documentary evidence submitted by the College. The Hearing Committee suggested that the Appellant “may review and make revised recommendation without any need for compliance verification.” Respondent No.2 referred the matter back to the Appellant along with the representation submitted by the College and requested the Appellant to conduct a review.
5. The Appellant directed another inspection to be conducted on 14th March, 2018. On the basis of the inspection, the assessors submitted a Compliance Verification Assessment Report noting the following deficiencies:
“1. Deficiency of faculty is 7.75% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 16.12% as detailed in the report.
3. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day of assessment was 53.11%.
4. Patients: Many patients in different wards were admitted since two to three months. In one male medicine ward 22 patients out of 34 were admitted since 29th January/ some from 30th January some from 31st January till date. There was only one patient in Dermatology ward rest of the patients as per the HOD Dermatology were shifted from Orthopaedics Ward. Also 49 patients admitted in different wards did not require admission were admitted for minor complaints like low backache/ osteoarthritis/ vertigo etc. One patient Mr. Raju with amputated leg with prosthesis explained himself that he doesn’t have any health problem. Wards are not as per MCI norms.
5. There is no separate record of OPD & IPD patients in the laboratory.
6. Number of Haematology tests in the register in the system could not be shown to the assessors du
