Back
2007 Supreme(MP) 664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. AND RAJENDRA MENON, J.
Manoj Upadhyay and Anr.
Versus
Medical Council of India and Ors.
W. P. No. 879 of 2005
Decided On : 11-7-2007.
Tapan Trivedi, for Petitioners; C. R. Roman, J. D. Suryavanshi, Ravindra Shrivastava, Vivek Khedkar, GA, Atul Gupta, Raju Sharma, Yogesh Chaturvedi, D. P. S. Bhadoriya, S. Gajendragadkar, Arvind Dudhawat, Mahesh Goyal, K. B. Chaturvedi, Sr. Counsel, for Respondents.
The Regulations of 2002 and the Adhiniyam of 1987 provide the authority and procedure for dealing with cases of advertisement by physicians, and a separate committee for taking action against medical practitioners for such violations was not necessary.
Headnote:
Advertisement - Medical Ethics - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 20A, Section 33(m) - Regulations of 2002, Chapter 6, Regulation 6.1, Regulation 7, Regulation 8 - The court discussed the Regulations of 2002, particularly Chapter 6, which prohibits doctors from advertising themselves in certain ways. It also highlighted the provisions for professional misconduct and disciplinary action under Regulation 7 and Regulation 8.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, alleging that doctors in Madhya Pradesh were violating the Regulations of 2002 by advertising themselves through large sign-boards and hoardings. They sought the constitution of a committee to monitor and enforce the regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Regulations of 2002 prohibited certain forms of advertising by physicians and provided for disciplinary action in case of violations. It also noted that the State Medical Council was already taking action against violators.
Issues: Violation of Regulations of 2002 by doctors, constitution of a committee to monitor and enforce the regulations, and formulation of Conduct Rules in compliance with the Adhiniyam of 1987 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Regulations of 2002 and the Adhiniyam of 1987 provided the authority and procedure for dealing with cases of advertisement by physicians, and therefore, a separate committee was not necessary. It directed complaints regarding violations to be made to the State Medical Council for appropriate action.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that complaints regarding violations of the Regulations of 2002 by physicians should be made to the State Medical Council for inquiry and action. The court also indicated that separate relief sought for the formulation of Conduct Rules could be considered in a separate writ petition.
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. :- The petitioners who are local residents of Gwalior have filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. They have stated that Regulation 6.1 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (for short 'the Regulations, 2002 (for short 'the Regulations of 2002') prohibits doctors who have been registered as Medical Practitioners, from advertising their names in large sign-boards or hoardings, but in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh, doctors and Nursing Homes owned by doctors have put up big sign boards and hoardings so as to attract patients for treatment. The petitioners have prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to constitute a permanent committee to keep vigil on the soliciting and infamous acts of the medical practitioners and to frame a policy through which the doctors at large may be made aware of the Regulations of 2002. Various other reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition for the purpose of ensuring that doctors desist from such acts of self-advertisement and unethical conduct in future.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Medical Council of India with the previous approval of the Central Government has made the Regulations of 2002 under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'). Chapter 6 of the Regulations of 2002 is titled as 'Unethical Acts'. Regulation 6.1 in Chapter 6 deals with advertising Sub-regulations 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of Chapter 6 of the Regulations of 2002 are quoted herein below :
6.1.1 Soliciting the patients directly or indirectly, by a physician, by a group of physicians or by institutions or organisations is unethical. A physician shall not make use of him/her (or his/her name) as subject of any form or manner of advertising or publicity through any mode either alone or in conjunction with others which is of such a character as to invite attention to him or to his professional position, skill, qualification, achievements, attainments, specialities, appointments, associations, affiliations or honours and/or of such character as would ordinarily result in his self aggrandisement. A physician shall not give to any person, whether for compensation or otherwise, any approval, recommendation, endorsement certificate, report or statement with respect of any drug, medicine, nostrum remedy, surgical, or therapeutic article, apparatus or appliance or any commercial product or article with respect of any property, quality or use thereof or any test, demonstration or trial thereof, for use in connection with his name, signature, or photograph in any form or manner of advertising through any mode nor shall he boast of cases, operations, cures or remedies or permit the publication of report thereof through any mode. A medical practitioner is however permitted to make a formal announcement in press regarding the follows :-
(1) On starting practice.
(2) On change of type of practice.
(3) On changing address.
(4) On temporary absnce from duty.
(5) On resumption of another practice.
(6) On succeeding to another practice.
(7) Public declaration of charges.
6.1.2 Printing of self photograph, or any such material of publicity in the letter head or on sign board of the consulting room or any such clinical establishment shall be regarded as acts of self advertisement and unethical conduct on the part of the physician. However, printing of sketches, diagrams, picture of human system shall not be treated as unethical.
3. It is clear from sub-regulation 6.1.1, quoted above, that a physician is prohibited from making use of him/her as subject of any form or manner of advertising or publicity through any mode either alone or in conjunction with others which is of such a character as to invite attention to him or to his professional position, skill, qualification, adhievements, attainments, specialities, appointments, associatio
