A physiotherapist cannot use the prefix 'Dr.' as it misleads the public regarding their qualifications, constituting an offence under the IPC and medical statutes.

JUDGMENT

Whether a criminal prosecution would lie against a physiotherapist for putting forth to the public at large to be a ‘Doctor’ by using the prefix ‘Dr.’ to his name in the office stationary and in his name boards is the short, but pertinent question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is a Physiotherapist by profession. He is the accused in C.C.No.867 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. Ext.P1 charge sheet has been laid against him alleging commission of offences under Section 419 of the IPC , Sections 38 and 39 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioner’s Act, 1953 and Section 17 (4) of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956. Petitioner claims to be totally innocent of the offences charged. He seeks to quash Ext.P1 charge sheet inter alia contending that it is a falsely foisted case wherein not even a prima facie case has been made out against him. He contends that subjecting him to face the trial will be an exercise in futility and enduring a trial will be trauma and punishment in itself. He has hence filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

1. (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction call for the records leading to Ext. P1 charge sheet and quash the same.

2. (ii) Such other and further reliefs this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. A statement has been filed by the 1^st respondent producing Annexure R1 (a) copy of an enquiry report submitted by the District Medical Officer (Health), Kannur, inter alia stating that an enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner/accused on the basis of the complaints received from the general public and it has been revealed in the said inquiry that the petitioner is not a qualified medical practitioner and his practice as a ‘doctor’ is illegal.

4. The de facto complainant got impleaded in this W.P.(C) as the additional 2^nd respondent pursuant to the order in I.A.No.13569 of 2013.

5. Heard Sri.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.Binoy Davis, learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. There was no appearance on behalf of the additional 2^nd respondent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P1 charge sheet had been filed and was being pursued under the misconception that a physiotherapist cannot be addressed as a ‘doctor’ and that a physiotherapist is prohibited from using the prefix ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’ to his name. Petitioner has been conferred with a Bachelor of Physiotherapy degree after successfully completing a full-fledged medical course spanning more than 4½ years. He has been admitted to the Indian Association of Physiotherapists as ‘Dr.K.V. Mohammed Jamsheer’. The prefix ‘Dr.’ is based on tradition and convention and there is no prohibition against using the said terms or designations under law. It has a meaning apart from the dictionary meaning of addressing a qualified practitioner of medicine, a person holding a doctorate etc. Exhibiting a name board describing his name as ‘Dr.Muhammed Jamsheer’ and attending to patients does not attract any offence punishable under any of the provisions under which he is seen charged. Further, Ext.P1 charge sheet does not disclose any offence punishable under law. The Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners' Act 1953, does not apply to Physiotherapists. No offence can lie against the petitioner under the said statute. The FIR states that the complaint was filed by an individual by name M.C.Shereef upon seeing a news item on a TV channel. The same cannot lead to an implication of the petitioner under the provisions of the statutes under which he is now seen charged. The role played by CW7, who is the husband of an allopathic doctor and an active worker of All India Ass