2022 Supreme(SC) 385

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
The National Medical Commission – Appellant
Versus
Pooja Thandu Naresh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2950-2951 of 2022 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) Nos. 2536-2537 of 2022)
Decided on : 29-04-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of Medical Degree – National Medical Commission is not bound to grant provisional registration to student who has not completed entire duration of course from Foreign Institute including clinical training.
(2) Without practical training, there cannot be any Doctor who is expected to take care of citizens of country.

Headnote:

Eligibility Requirement for Taking Admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 – Regulation 4(3) – Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Now repealed by National Medical Commission Act, 2019) – Grant of Medical Degree – Necessity of clinical training – Appellant is not bound to grant provisional registration to student who has not completed entire duration of course from Foreign Institute including clinical training – Pandemic has thrown new challenges to entire world including students but granting provisional registration to complete internship to a student who has not undergone clinical training would be compromising with health of citizens of any country and health infrastructure at large – Students had taken admission in medical colleges outside India for reason that they could not get admission in medical colleges in India – China alone has a number of Institutes offering medical courses conducted in English language – Act and Screening Regulations are framed in such a way that course completed by students is treated to be valid in India provided that medical qualification is recognised for enrolment of medical practitioner in that country – Medical course is permitted to be completed abroad to practice in India only on the basis of an endorsement that completion of such medical course entitles them to practice in said foreign country – Without practical training, there cannot be any Doctor who is expected to take care of citizens of country – Decision of appellant not to grant provisional registration cannot be said to be arbitrary – Argument that certain students have been granted provisional registration will not confer any right with student to claim provisional registration so as to undergo internship – There cannot be any equality in illegality – However, students were permitted to undergo medical course abroad and that they have completed their curriculum according to certificate granted by such Foreign Institute – Such national resource cannot be permitted to be wasted which will affect life of young students, who had taken admission in foreign Institutes as part of their career prospects – Services of students should be used to augment health infrastructure in the country – It would be necessary that students undergo actual clinical training of such duration and at such institutes which are identified by appellant and on such terms and conditions, including charges for imparting such training, as may be notified by appellant – Directions issued. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are directed against orders dated 29.7.2021 and 20.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the writ petitions filed for quashing the circulars issued by Tamil Nadu Medical Council on 12.11.2020 and 24.12.2020 and consequential orders of directing respondent No. 1/writ petitioner1 to undergo two months of Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship, followed by one year of internship before granting permanent registration under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (now repealed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019). Question to be examined is as to whether degree granted by Foreign Institute even in respect of clinical training is binding on the appellant and the student has to be provisionally registered.

Findings of Court:

The argument that if a student has a right, then such right can be enforced independent of the order passed by the courts is not tenable. Qualifying in the Screening Regulations is no proof of the clinical experience, if any, gained by the students. The Screening examination is based upon Optical Mark Reader (OMR) answers and has no correlation with any practical training. We do not find that in terms of the Screening Regulations, the students are entitled to the provisional registration.

Result : Appeals disposed of with directions.