Back
MUTTETUGAMA v. DHARMARATNA
NLR32V87
1930 Present: Maartensz A. J.
MUTTETUGAMA v. DHARMARATNA.
440-p. C. Kalutara, 36,775.
Apothecary-Permitted to
practise medicine- Use of the title " Doctor "-Ordinance No. 26 of 1927, s. 41
(a).
A Government apothecary, who is permitted to practise medicine and surgery
under the Medical Ordinance, No. 26 of 1927, commits a breach of section 41 (a)
of the Ordinance by using the title " Doctor ".
APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Kalutara.
N.E. Weerasooria, for accused, appellant.
August 6,1930. MAARTENSZ A.J.-
The complaint against the accused in this case is that he described himself as "
Doctor ", thereby implying a qualification to practise medicine or surgery by
modern scientific methods, implying or tending to the belief that he was a
medical practitioner registered under the Ordinance. It has been' established
that the accused has not the necessary qualification to make that implication
and that he is not a medical practitioner registered under the Ordinance.
Two subsidiary questions were argued in support of the appeal by the accused :
(1) that he was entitled to plead autre fois acquit, as he had been previously
acquitted in case No. 30,159 of the Police Court of Kalutara, where he was
charged with a similar offence. This contention cannot be upheld, for the
offence is a continuing one, and the offence with which the accused was charged
in this case though a similar offence was not the same offence ; (2) that the
accused was by reason of the provisions of subsection (b) of section 41 coupled
with section 43 of the Medical Ordinance, No. 26 of 1927, entitled to use a name
implying a qualification to practise medicine or surgery by modern scientific
methods. I do not think this contention is a tenable one, for, in my opinion
sub-section (b) only entitles a Government apothecary to practise medicine and
surgery for gain without making himself liable to the penalty prescribed for a
breach of section 41, but does not entitle him to describe himself by a title
referred to in subsection (a).
The main question for decision is whether the use of the term " Doctor " by
itself is a breach of section 41 (a). The term " Doctor " is not limited to
doctors of medicine, but in this Island it is generally used to describe persons
qualified to practise medicine or surgery by modern scientific methods ;
besides, the .accused has not denied the implication of the use of the
description " Doctor " by him, and it is in evidence that he used it on a board
put up in front of his house coupled with his name and the letters L. M. B.
after his name, and beneath this description there are the words " Pharmacy and
Surgery " in English, Sinhalese, and Tamil. Whatever argument may have been
adduced that the word " Doctor " does not necessarily mean a person qualified to
practise medicine and surgery, that argument cannot be put forward in a case
where the word is used as descriptive of a man keeping a pharmacy and surgery.
De Sampayo J. in the case of the King v. Sandrasekera [23 N. L. R. 368.] refers
to an unreported judgment of his that cannot be traced, as he gives no
reference, in which he said he came to the conclusion that the word " Doctor "
generally denotes a person possessing a diploma or certificate from a university
or College which teaches the modern scientific methods. This decision confirms
my opinion regarding the use of the word " Doctor " in this case.
Appeal dismissed.
