Dismissed

Dr.Mohandas v. the Travancore Cochin MEDICAl council

Kerala HC18 Jul 2019WP(C)/4940/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Travancore Cochin Medical Council's order directing petitioners to stop displaying an unrecognized Master in Health Sciences in Diabetology degree. The court held the degree was non-compliant with statutory provisions and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; petitioners are not entitled to display the unrecognized degree.

Dr.Mohandas Vs the Travancore Cochin MEDICAl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4940 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 DR. MOHANDAS, AGED 55 YEARS, PORAYATH KULAMBA,CHKORAKKODE, PERUVAMBA.P.O., PALAKKAD-678531.

¶8

2 DR. GIRIJA THANKAPPAN, HOUSE NO.2, HOUSING BOARD, PALLIKKUTTY, VENGALLOOR.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685608.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.CHITTOOR RAJAMANNAR SRI.DILEEP CHITTOOR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

¶12

2 THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POCKET 14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PHASE I, NEW DELHI-110 075.

¶13

3 THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION(UGC), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.

¶14

4 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT(DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001.

¶15

BY ADVS. R1 - SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC R2 - SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA R4 - SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

C.R.

JUDGMENT

The question emerges for consideration in this

¶22

writ petition is whether the M.H.Sc (Diabetology), a degree of Master in Health Sciences in Diabetology secured by the petitioners from the Annamalai University can be exhibited by the petitioners anywhere? It is admitted that the said course offered by the Annamalai University is not recognized by the Medical Council of India (MCI) or that it is included in the schedule of qualifications under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1956').

¶23

To start with, “recognized medical

¶24

qualification” is defined under Sec.2(h) of the Act, 1956 to mean; any of the medical qualifications included in the Schedules. Section 10A of Act, 1956 deals with permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study; which stipulates that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force,--

¶25

(a) no person shall establish a medical college;

¶26

¶27

(b) no medical college shall--

¶28

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶29

¶30

training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification; or

¶31

(ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training),

¶32

except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said section.

¶33

So also, Sec.10B(2) stipulates that, where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of such study or training shall be a recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the Act. So much so, Sec.26(1) of the Act deals with registration of additional qualification, and it is stipulated that, if any person whose name is entered in the Indian Medical Register obtains any title, diploma or other

¶34

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019 4

¶35

qualification for proficiency in sanitary science, public health or medicine, which is a recognized medical qualification, he shall, on application made in that behalf in the prescribed manner, be entitled to have an entry stating such other title, diploma, or other qualification made against his name in the Indian

¶36

Medical Register either in substitution for or in

¶37

addition to any entry previously made, and sub-section (2) thereto prescribes that the entries in respect of

¶38

any such person in a State Medical Register shall be altered in accordance with the alterations made in the Indian Medical Register.

¶39

That apart, Regulation 1.4 of Chapter 1 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, deals with display of registration numbers. Regulation 1.4.1 mandates that 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. Regulation 1.4.2 stipulates that, physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognized medical degrees or such

¶40

certificates/diplomas and memberships/honours which

¶41

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶42

¶43

confer professional knowledge or recognizes any

¶44

exemplary qualification/achievements. So also, Regulation 7.20 requires that a physician shall not

¶45

claim to be specialist unless he has a special qualification in that branch. These are the relevant provisions to deal with the issues raised by the petitioners in the writ petition.

¶46

Now coming to the facts projected by the

¶47

petitioners, 1^st petitioner is a Surgeon attached to the Taluk Hospital, Adimaly, who has passed MBBS Degree in 1989 and took MS in General Surgery in 2008, and the 2^nd petitioner is a medical practitioner in Thodupuzha, who has secured MBBS Degree in the year 1988. According to the petitioners, they had passed the Degree of Master in Health Sciences in Diabetology [M.H.Sc (Diabetology)] offered by the medical faculty of the Annamalai University, and the said University is established by law, and having a medical faculty as defined in Sec.2(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

¶48

Case of the petitioners is that, upon a false complaint, the 1^st respondent i.e., the Travancore Cochin Medical Council issued notice to 5 doctors including the petitioners to appear before it on

¶49

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶50

¶51

05.01.2018 and file explanations. Accordingly,

¶52

petitioners appeared before the 1^st respondent and the petitioners were compelled to execute an undertaking to remove the additional qualifications displayed upon the boards and letters, and prescription pads of the petitioners, in respect of M.H.Sc. (Diabetology) Postgraduate degree. It is also submitted that,

¶53

petitioners were threatened that unless the undertaking was tendered, petitioners would be suspended from the

¶54

Rolls of the Council for a period of three months and penal action would follow. It was thereupon that Ext.P8 order is issued. Other contentions are also raised by the petitioners to justify the action of exhibiting the aforesaid Post-graduate Degree in the boards, prescriptions etc. etc. Therefore, according

¶55

to the petitioners, they are entitled to display the Post-graduate Degree as of right and in terms of laws specified above.

¶56

The 1^st respondent has filed a detailed counter

¶57

affidavit, refuting the claims raised by the

¶58

petitioners. Among other contentions, it is submitted that, the medical practitioners who are registered with the 1^st respondent Council are entitled to exhibit only such qualifications which are entered in the Register

¶59

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019 7

¶60

maintained by the Council. However, the additional

¶61

qualifications stated to have been obtained by the petitioners are not entered as additional

¶62

qualifications against their names in the Register referred to above. Circumstances being so, petitioners cannot be permitted to exhibit any such qualifications which are not recognized by the Medical Council of India, and not entered as an additional qualification in the Register maintained by the 1^st respondent Council. That apart, it is submitted that, only Postgraduate qualifications in Modern Medicine enlisted in

¶63

the Schedule to the Act, 1956 are considered as recognized medical post-graduate qualification for the purpose of registration, and since the qualification in question was not recognized by the 2^nd respondent and

¶64

not included in the Schedule to Act, 1956, the qualification cannot be registered as additional qualification in the Register maintained by the 1^st respondent Council.

¶65

It is also submitted that the 1^st respondent received a complaint from one Dr. K. Ramachandra, Janatha Clinic, Thodupuzha, alleging practice of

¶66

medicine by certain pseudo Specialists in the field of Medicine in which the names of 10 Medical Practitioners

¶67

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶68

¶69

including that of the petitioners were mentioned.

¶70

Accordingly, the representation was placed before the Disciplinary Committee of the Council of Modern

¶71

Medicine held on 22.09.2017, which resolved to obtain explanations from those Medical Practitioners. On finding prima facie that there was substance in the

¶72

complaint against the petitioners and other doctors whose names were mentioned therein, were required to appear in the Disciplinary Committee meeting held on 05.01.2018. On verification of the Register maintained in the office of the 1^st respondent, it was found that petitioners are registered medical practitioners with M.B.B.S qualification having Registration Nos.18569 and

¶73

17462 respectively, and no other additional qualification are seen entered in the said Register against the names of the petitioners.

¶74

The Disciplinary Committee thereafter verified the documents and perused the explanations submitted by the petitioners and others and came to a definite conclusion that the petitioners and other doctors have displayed qualifications which are not recognized as per Act, 1956, along with their recognized medical qualification viz., M.B.B.S. It was accordingly the Disciplinary Committee directed them not to display

¶75

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019 9

¶76

such qualifications which are not 'recognized'

¶77

qualifications and to remove such qualifications from their name boards etc. At that juncture, petitioners undertook before the Committee in writing that they will not exhibit such degrees any more. Thereupon, petitioners and other doctors were cautioned not to repeat it and were warned that in case any such act is

¶78

noticed in future, strict action will be taken against them.

¶79

That apart, it is pointed out that, such

¶80

actions are well within the powers of the Disciplinary Committee, and the 1^st respondent Council has agreed with the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee

¶81

in this regard. It was thereafter that petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition, stating that they were compelled to execute undertaking not to display a disputed qualification secured by

¶82

them. It is also submitted that, 2^nd petitioner has earlier filed W.P.(C) No.3046 of 2018, which was

¶83

withdrawn, and the 2^nd petitioner along with the 1^st petitioner has again approached this Court with the same cause of action, which cannot be countenanced.

¶84

The 2^nd respondent has also filed a detailed statement, stating that the Post-graduate Degree that

¶85

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶86

¶87

is stated to be secured by the petitioners is not a recognized degree, and that the same is not included in the Schedule of the Act 1956. Petitioners have been

¶88

awarded the said degree by the Annamalai University without securing previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10A of Act, 1956, and therefore, it is not a recognized medical qualification in terms of Sec.10B(2) of Act,

¶89

Other legal contentions in respect of the

¶90

provisions discussed above are also raised by the 2^nd respondent.

¶91

A reply affidavit is also filed by the

¶92

petitioners reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition.

¶93

I have heard Sri. Chittoor Rajamannar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. N. Reghuraj, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Sri. Titus Mani Vettom, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶94

It is an admitted fact that the Post-graduate Medical Degree specified above and stated to be secured by the petitioners from the Annamalai University, State of Tamil Nadu is not a recognized degree in accordance

¶95

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶96

¶97

with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act,

¶98

1956, as discussed above. It is clearly specified under the provisions of the Act that without securing a

¶99

prior permission from the Central Government, no new or higher course of study or training can be undertaken by

¶100

any medical college. So also, Sec.10B(2) makes it

¶101

clear that, any new or higher course of study or

¶102

training conducted by any medical college except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10A, no medical qualifications granted to any student of such medical college shall be recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the Act. The said provisions when read along with Sec.26 dealing with registration of medical qualification, it is clear that, unless and until the qualification is a recognized one and included in the Schedule of the Act, 1956, such degree cannot be

¶103

displayed by any person who has undergone a course of study. That apart, recognized medical qualification is defined to mean; only the medical qualifications included in the Schedule.

¶104

Taking into account the factual circumstances put forth by the petitioners, it is clear that the claim raised by the petitioners in the writ petition is

¶105

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶106

¶107

hit by the provisions of Act, 1956. Therefore, it is

¶108

clear that the petitioners who were law-breakers, cannot make any claim on the basis of a Post-graduate Degree secured by them from the Annamalai University. Regulation 2002 specified above enables only to display as suffix to their names, only recognized medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and

¶109

memberships/honours which confer professional knowledge or recognizes any exemplary qualification/achievements.

¶110

Since the Post-graduate degree in question is not recognized, petitioners are not entitled to display the same as a suffix. It is also clear from Regulation 7.20 that when such qualifications are added as suffix

¶111

in the name boards or prescriptions or any other documents, then it is clear that such persons are claimed to be specialists in that branch. Even though petitioners have raised a contention that the Postgraduate degree secured by them are not qualifications under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, they are entitled to display as of right, cannot be sustained, since petitioners themselves have a case that they have secured the Post-graduate medical qualification from the Annamalai University. It is also clear that Ext.P8 order was passed by the 1^st respondent in accordance

¶112

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶113

¶114

with the undertaking given by the petitioners that they

¶115

will remove the qualification in question displayed, enabling the petitioners to practice medicine. Therefore, in my considered opinion, petitioners have not made out any case of arbitrariness, illegality or manifest injustice or unfairness on the part of the 1^st respondent in passing the order directing the petitioners to remove the Post-graduate degree

¶116

qualification in question displayed.

¶117

Upshot of the above discussion is, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

St/23.07.2019

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶123

¶124

APPENDIX

¶125

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶126

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE OF THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 DATED 4.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE OF THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 DATED 19.01.2015.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2017 AND THE UNDATED COMPLAINT FILED IN THE NAME OF DR.K.RAMACHANDRA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 BY THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2017 ALONG WITH THE UNDATED COMPLAINT FILED IN THE NAME OF DR.K.RAMACHANDRA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 BY THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING OBTAINED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FROM THE PETITIONER NO.1.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING OBTAINED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FROM THE PETITIONER NO.2.
EXHIBIT P7	AN EXTRACT OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART 1- SEC.1 DATED 25-7-2015.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2018 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ISSUED TO PETITIONERS NO.1 & 2.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY NO.280, DATED 25.9.2013.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA PART-1 SEC.1 DATED 25.7.2015 MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION) NO.F.6-1/2013-DL.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROSPECTUS OF THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, DIRECTORATE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 2011- 2012.

¶127

W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2019

¶128

¶129

EXHIBIT P12	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE DETAILS OF THE M.H.Sc. (DIABETOLOGY) DEGREE SHOWN IN THE PROSPECTUS OF ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 94873/HI/91-1 EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT DATED 17.12.1991 ISSUED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P13-A	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. F.1-1'88 T.13 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 25-11-1988.

¶130

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶131

//TRUE COPY//

¶132

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶133

St/-

Dr.Mohandas v. the Travancore Cochin MEDICAl council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Mohandas v. the Travancore Cochin MEDICAl council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji Mathew, Vs the Chief Engineer

Siraj Maidan Koya Vs the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Puthalath Balakrishnan Vs Manohar K

Johnson Mathew, Vs M/S.Sundaram Finance Limited

Pushparaj.N@Pushpan Santhitheeram Vs Shoranur Municipality

Hydrose Alias Thandanaparambil Sayed Mohamed Hydrose Vs Biju.R