SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri. Dr. Annaiah. N., S/o Late Nagappa - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary, Health Department And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.23267 OF 2023 (GM -RES)
Decided On : 20-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Prakasha M, Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Navya Shekhar, AGA

The judgment established the importance of meeting specific qualifications for registration as a medical practitioner under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007.

Headnote:

Quashment - Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007 - Section 2, Section 3, Section 6 - The court discussed the definitions of Medical Practitioner, Medical treatment, Nursing Home, and Private Medical Establishment under the Act. It highlighted the prerequisites for registration of private medical establishments and the qualifications required for registration. The court also referred to a specific judgment to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashment of an endorsement declining to issue a registration certificate for his clinic under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007. The petitioner claimed to be a medical practitioner with qualifications from various courses and sought registration under the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the qualifications of the petitioner and the provisions of the Act. It found that the petitioner's qualifications did not meet the requirements for registration as a medical practitioner under the Act. The court also referred to a specific judgment to support its decision. Consequently, the petition was rejected, and the clinic's seizure was deemed necessary due to non-registration by an unqualified doctor.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's qualifications met the requirements for registration as a medical practitioner under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the specific qualifications required for registration as a medical practitioner under the Act and the petitioner's failure to meet those qualifications.

Final Decision: The petition was rejected, and the clinic's seizure was deemed necessary due to non-registration by an unqualified doctor.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an endorsement dated 25-09-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent/ District Health & Family Welfare Officer and Member Secretary of the Committee of Registration under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007 declining to issue registration certificate to the petitioner for his Sangeetha Clinic.

2. Heard Sri M.Prakasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

3. The facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be a medical practitioner practicing in various forms of medicine. He has completed community medical service course – C.M.S. course and has obtained CMS-ED certificate from the Central Paramedical Education Board, Mumbai which the petitioner claims to be under the World Health Organization directive or guidelines. He further avers in the petition that he has taken training in paramedical course at Delhi and on the strength of the aforesaid certificate that he possesses begins a clinic in the name and style of Sangeetha Clinic at Mini Ibrahim Road, KGF, Bangarpet Taluk and claims to be practicing from several years.

4. Government of Karnataka promulgates Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (‘the Act’ for short) which came into effect from 23-01-2008. As required under the Act, a medical practitioner who wants to set up a private practice must apply under the Act and once registration is approved he would be entitled to practice. Accordingly, the petitioner files an application online for registration of his clinic under the Act. This comes to be rejected by the impugned endorsement on the score that the qualification of the petitioner does not permit registration under the Act. The turning down of the application in terms of the endorsement dated 25-09-2023 is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having the aforesaid qualification is entitled to practice medicine. The Act does not differentiate between medical practitioners but does define only medicine and not any form of medicine and as such private medical establishments can function. He would seek that there are plethora of judgments rendered by co-ordinate Benches of this Court where directions are issued to consider cases of those petitioners who are not in the main stream of medicine.

6. Per-contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Navya Shekahar would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that these doctors are practicing allopathy without there being any qualification to so practice. Every judgment produced by the petitioner are all cases in which this Court has directed consideration of the cases of the petitioners who have submitted their applications online and no endorsement was issued upon the said applications. It is her submission that those cases would not be applicable to the fact situation, as endorsement is already issued stating that the petitioner is not entitled to registration of practice under the Act. She would place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in DR. M.R. MOHAN BHATTA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, W.A.No..478 of 2023 decided on 21-09-2023 to buttress her submissions.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the impugned endorsement and the impugned endorsement is based upon the Act, I deem it appropriate to notice certain provisions of the Act. Section 2 deals with definitions. Section 2(k) defines who is a Medical Practitioner and reads as follows:

“(k) ‘Medical Practitioner’ means a medical practitioner registered under the Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1961 (Karnataka A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top