A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice S.M. Subramaniam rejected the contentions of the petitioners who wanted the court to authorize their medical practice on the basis of Diploma Certificates for the Community Medical Service Certificate Course, issued by the National Board of Alternate Medicine.
The court held that this institute is not a recognized institute and the certificates are invalid.
Brief Facts:
All the petitioners jointly filed the present writ petition stating that they are the practitioners of alternative medicines like Acupuncture, Hypnotherapy, Yoga etc. The petitioners have undergone Community Medical Service Certificate Course (CMS) and successfully completed the course and obtained a Diploma in CMS. The course was for a period of six months which includes teaching and training classes.
The petitioners state that they gained experience in examining, diagnosing and treating the patients. The grievances of the petitioners are that they are being obstructed by the Police authorities and other medical departmental authorities while practicing alternate medicine in their respective locations. Since the petitioners were intercepted periodically, they have submitted a representation to the Government to recognize their medical practice which is otherwise in accordance with the course undergone by them.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The petitioners contended that they have completed six months of Community Medical Service Course which is a Diploma Course and thereafter, continued to practice medicine. Therefore, the respondents must be restrained from initiating action against the writ petitioners while practising alternate medicine in their alternate locality.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents contended that the writ petitioners are not qualified medical practitioners. They have not undergone any recognized medical courses being conducted under the provisions of the statute or rules in force. The Diploma in CMS issued in their favour by the National Board of Alternate Medicine is not a recognized institute itself but it is a private institute and therefore, such diploma courses conducted for six months cannot be considered as a valid course for the purpose of granting permission to the writ petitioners to practice alternate medicine. The petitioners have not defined the alternate medicines or explained their area of medical practice. They generally contended that they are practising alternate medicine which cannot be accepted.
Further, unqualified persons cannot claim any right to practice alternate medicines. In this regard, Section 2(f) of the Indian Medical Counsel Act 1956 states that “'medicine' means modern scientific medicine in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics, but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery;” As per Section 15(2) (b) “no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register shall practice medicine in any state;”
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that allowing any unrecognised institute to conduct six months medical courses and issue diploma certificates would result in disastrous consequences in the society. Further, health being an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the 'State' is duty bound to ensure that the unrecognised institutes are dealt with properly in accordance with law and the invalid diploma certificates issued by those unrecognised medical institutions are cancelled and the persons secured such certificates are prevented from practising medicine in the society.
This being the Constitutional mandate of the State to ensure Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present case required an enquiry at large, so as to find out, whether many persons in the society on getting such medical certificates, practising alternate medicine or not. As per the court, the writ petitioners herein were neither holding any valid medical decree nor their names were enrolled as medical practitioners in the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. Thus, they were not entitled to practice alternate medicine or any other practice in the medical field. Lastly, the petitioners did not establish any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief.
Decision of the Court:
The writ petition stood disposed of.
Case Title: Periya Elayaraja vs The Director General of Police
Coram: Justice S.M. Subramaniam
Case No.: Writ Petition No.23993 of 2015
Advocate of the Petitioners: M/S N. Manokaran
Advocate of the Respondents: Mr. S. Ravichandran
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :