Skip to main content

Whether Doctors qualified from Foreign Institutions should display that their degree is equivalent to MBBS in India [JUDGMENT]

Medical Council Act, 1956 - The perceived misunderstanding regarding the qualification of the doctor may not by itself, be a justification for the State Medical Council to insist on the doctors, who have obtained their degree from foreign institution, to make changes in their name boards or in their letter heads since it is not the case of the State Medical Council that the doctors had not obtained the displayed degrees or they attempted to mislead the public.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940
WA.No.2055 of 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29310/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28.9.2018
APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS:
DR. M. RAMAKRISHNA BABU AND 19 OTHERS
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS:
1 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET - 14, SECTOR - 8, DWARKA, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI - 110 077, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
2 TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 035, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
3 THE REGISTRAR, TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 035.
R1 BY SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC R2 & R3 BY SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.
The appellants are the writ petitioners and they are aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.9.2018 in the W.P.(C)No.29310/15, whereby some Writ Petitions were analogously dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The challenge in the Writ Petition was to the notice dated 22.5.2015 (Ext.P14) of the Travancore - Cochin Medical Council, hereinafter “the State Medical Council”, whereby directions were issued to those, who have obtained the qualification such as “M.D. Physician”, “M.D. Doctors of Medicine” etc. from foreign universities. These foreign degrees were equivalent to MBBS degree in India and Ext.P14 was intended to prevent the foreign educated MBBS level doctors from being perceived as or even misrepresenting themselves, either as Specialists or as Doctors with Post Graduate qualification in medicine. A notice issued on 6.7.2015 (Ext.P13), based on the Ext.P14 issued to an individual doctor is also produced to indicate that, he is required to change his letterhead and the name board and to write down therein, “M.D.Physician (Equivalent to MBBS in India)”. Besides, the doctor was required to furnish compliance report to the Registrar of the Travancore- Cochin Medical Council.


3. The medical degrees obtained by the appellants from foreign medical institutions are included in the Second Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MCI Act') and such degrees are permitted to be recognized, under Section 12 of the MCI Act. The appellants after securing their medical degree from the foreign institutes, appeared in the screening test contemplated under Section 13(4)A and passed the same. Consequently, they got themselves registered, as recognized medical practitioners, with the State Medical Council. The certificate of registration of the doctors are marked in the Writ Petition as Exts.P1 to P12, which suggest that the degrees of the doctors is recorded as M.D.Physician. Most of the doctors have been practicing medicine privately or in government hospitals, for last several years.
4. The Exts.P13 and P14 instructions appear to be based on the communication dated 16.7.2015 (Ext.R2(b)) of the Medical Council of India. The said instruction was issued to the Registrar of all the State Medical Councils and it reads as under:
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA No.MCI-203(1)/Regn./2015/21922 Date:16.07.2015 To, The Registrar, All State Medical Council Sub: Equivalence of Primary Medical Qualification awarded by various medical universities/institutes outside India-reg.
Sir/Madam, It has come to the notice of the Medical Council of India that some doctors who obtained their primary medical qualification degree i.e. MD (Physician) from various medical universities/institutes outside India are misleading the public by mentioning the title of degree as MD instead of MD (Physician). It may please to be noted that MD(Physician) qualification awarded by various medical universities/institutes outside India is equivalent to MBBS qualification in India.
In this regard, your attention is invited to Clause 1.4.1, 1.4.2 & 7.20 of the India Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 which reads as under:-


1.4.1. Every physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to his patients.
1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognized medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/honours which confer professional knowledge or recognizes any exemplary qualification/achievements.
7.20 A physician shall not claim to be specialist unless he has a special qualification in that branch.”
In view of the above, you are requested to give wide publicity to this effect in your State and ensure that the person/persons holding such qualification and practicing in your State are mentioning/displaying the exact title of his/her qualification on prescriptions/certificates/payment receipts etc.
You are also requested that while issuing provisional/permanent registration certificate for primary medical qualification to foreign graduates, please indicate in the registration certificate that MD (Physician) or similar qualification is equivalent to MBBS qualification.


Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr. Reena Nayyar) Secretary (I/C)”
5. It is evident from the above that the MCI had instructed the State Medical Councils to indicate in the Registration Certificate issued to various medical degree holders from abroad that, the M.D. Physician or similar qualification is equivalent to MBBS qualification. There was no further requirement however for the practicing doctor to make any consequential changes in his nameboards or in his/her letter heads. To this extent, the direction by the State Medical Council was beyond what was contemplated in the MCI's communication dated 16.7.2015 (Ext.R2(b)).
6. It is worth noting that the learned Standing Counsel Sri.N.Raghuraj appearing for the Travancore - Cochin Medical Council has failed to show us any provision which permits the State Medical Council to require the doctors, who qualified from foreign institution, to display in their name board or in their letter heads that, their degree of M.D. Physician is, equivalent to the MBBS degree. The counsel however, submits that if such indication is not given in the name boards and in the letter heads, there is every possibility of the public or patients being misguided as to the qualification of the doctor and they might erroneously consider the concerned doctor to be specialist or a doctor with Post Graduate degree in Medicine.
7. The perceived misunderstanding regarding the qualification of the doctor may not by itself, be a justification for the State Medical Council to insist on the doctors, who have obtained their degree from foreign institution, to make changes in their name boards or in their letter heads since it is not the case of the State Medical Council that the doctors had not obtained the displayed degrees or they attempted to mislead the public. In fact, the doctors were displaying their precise qualification in their prescriptions as well as in the name boards and the projected information appears to conform to the Ext.R2(b) communication of the MCI, issued on 16.7.2015.
8. For the above reasons, we feel that the impugned judgment to the extent it upholds Exts.P13 and P14 of the State Medical Council, requiring the doctors to effect changes in their letter heads and name boards, is not supported by the MCI Regulations or the guidelines issued by the MCI. We, therefore, set aside that part of the impugned judgment. It is nevertheless made clear that the writ petitioners/appellants should submit their Registration Certificates to the State Medical Council to obtain an endorsement thereon to the effect that their degree of M.D. Physician or similar degree from foreign university, is equivalent to the MBBS degree in India. It is ordered accordingly.


9. With such modification in the impugned judgment to the above extent, the Writ Appeal stands allowed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -  Section 438 -   Grant of Anticipatory Bail -  While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]