IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Alok Kumar & Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2781 of 2017
Decided On : 20-6-2024
Mandamus - Community Medical Services - Uttarakhand Clinical Establishments Act 2010, Section 13(2) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Uttarakhand Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2015, emphasizing that only degree holders from recognized medical methods are entitled to practice, leading to the dismissal of the petitioners' claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought registration as Community Medical Services Practitioners, claiming to have completed relevant training and provided medical services. They challenged the non-registration by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners lacked valid medical qualifications as per the Uttarakhand Clinical Establishments Act, which only recognizes degree holders from specified medical fields for practice.
Issues: Whether the petitioners, possessing a Diploma in Community Medical Services, are entitled to practice medicine in Uttarakhand without registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without valid medical qualifications recognized by law, individuals cannot practice medicine, ensuring public safety and adherence to regulatory standards.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:
“1- A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to register the Petitioners as Community Medical Services Practitioners.
2- A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful practice of the Petitioners as Community Medical Services Practitioners till they are registered in accordance with law.”
2. According to petitioners, they successfully completed Community Medical Services (Essential Drugs) from a recognized institution situated in Sultanpur and certificate to this effect has been issued by Para Medical Council of India. It is further stated that petitioners are practicing as Community Medical Services Practitioner in Haldwani and providing medical services to needy persons. It is further stated that they have been trained in allopathic medicines and are also well trained to give first aid to patients. The grievance raised by them is against non-registration of their name by Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad.
3. A short counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. S.S. Tolia, Joint Secretary, Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand. Para 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said short counter affidavit are extracted below:
“2. That this Hon’ble Court on 14.11.2017 has directed to seek instruction in the matter on the following aspects:-
(i) Whether petitioners and other persons, who possess Diploma in Community Medical Services (Essential Drug), are entitled to practice in the State of Uttarakhand.
(ii) Whether registration, if any, with Para Medical Council of India entitles any persons to treat patients and run clinics.
(iii) If answer to the aforesaid 2 queries is in the negative, then how many persons with similar qualifications are engaged in medical practice in State of Uttarakhand?
(iv) What efforts have been made by the State Government to identify unqualified and unauthorised persons who are engaged in medical practice in State of Uttarakhand.
3. That so far as the query in point no. 1 is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that there is no provision in the State of Uttarakhand to carry out the medical profession who possess Diploma in Community Medical Services (Essential Drug). It is further submitted that Section 13(2) Chapter IV of the Uttarakhand Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2015 provides that only the degree holders from the running establishments conducted by the degree holders of the recognized medical methods (as MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BUMS, BHMS, BSMS, Yoga, Naturopathy and Sowa Rigpa) shall be given provisional registration under the Clinical Establishment Act (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. True and correct copy of the relevant extract of Section 13(2) Chapter-4 of the Uttarakhand Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2015 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure S.C.A.-1 to this affidavit.
4. That so far as the query in point no. 2 is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that under Chapter-4 Section 13(2) of the Uttarakhand Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2015 provides that the provisional registration under the Clinical Establishment Act (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 shall be made any of the running establishment conducted by the degree holders of the recognized medical methods (as MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BUMS, BHMS, BSMS, Yoga, Naturopathy and Sowa Rigpa) shall be given the provisional registration.
5. That so far as the query in point no. 3 is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that as per the information received from all the Chief Medical Officers, in the State of Uttarakhand as per list/chart prepared till July 2016, there are 744 numbers of quacks are reported. Copy of the list/chart prepared till July, 2016 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure S.C.A.-2 to this affidavit.
6
AI
Only individuals with valid medical qualifications recognized by law are permitted to practice medicine, ensuring public safety.
Only qualified medical practitioners enrolled on a State Medical Register are entitled to practice medicine, and unrecognised institutes cannot issue valid medical certificates.
Only upon its holding a valid affiliation, from premier regulatory mechanism, they would not become entitled to cause their registration in relevant register, hence maintained by respondent concerned....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of verification of medical documents and the limitations of the law in overriding the verification process.
Regulatory bodies' qualifications are essential for appointment eligibility; service rules under Article 309 are legitimate if not violating fundamental rights.
The judgment established the importance of meeting specific qualifications for registration as a medical practitioner under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.