Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the orders dated 29.7.2021 and 20.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the writ petitions filed for quashing the circulars issued by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and consequential orders of directing respondent No. 1 to undergo two months of Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship, followed by one year of internship before granting permanent registration under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Brief Facts:
The student and other similarly situated students after qualifying the eligibility test joined medical colleges in the People’s Republic of China, such as Qingdao University Faculty of Medicine. It is the stand of the students that they have undergone nine semesters of their academic course including clinical training on the campus. However, due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the clinical training for the three subjects in the 10th Semester was done online and that they have been granted degree of Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) after qualifying in all the subjects as per the teaching plan till May, 2020 by the Foreign Institute. According to the student, some of her fellow students have been granted provisional registration by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council but she has been declined such provisional registration which led to filing of number of writ petitions before the High Court. The argument is that since she has been declared qualified by the Foreign Institute, the only requirement before provisional registration is qualifying in the Screening Test in terms of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002. As she has qualified such Screening Test therefore, the condition in the statute read with the Screening Regulations stands satisfied. Hence, the decision of the Medical Council not to grant provisional registration is not justified in law.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of the statutory Regulations, the student has to study the medical course in the same institute located abroad for the “entire duration”. It was argued that as per the dates of the semester and the date of departure of student from China, it shows that the student has not completed the ninth semester in part and tenth semester completely, therefore, the student is not eligible for provisional registration to undergo one year internship so as to be eligible for registration as a professional under the Act.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the action of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council is completely arbitrary and discriminatory as some students have been granted provisional registration not only by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council but also by the Medical Council of different States. Therefore, declining of provisional registration to the student leads to heartburn amongst the student who has not been granted provisional registration. Learned counsel referred to a note filed on behalf of the appellant before the High Court to contend that the stand of the appellant was that acquiring primary medical qualification from the Foreign Medical Institute was acceptable for grant of registration.
SC’s Observations:
The question before the SC was whether the degree granted by the Foreign Institute even in respect of clinical training is binding on the appellant and the student has to be provisionally registered?
SC found that the appellant is not bound to grant provisional registration to the student who has not completed the entire duration of the course from the Foreign Institute including the clinical training. No doubt, the pandemic has thrown new challenges to the entire world including the students but granting provisional registration to complete internship to a student who has not undergone clinical training would be compromising with the health of the citizens of any country and the health infrastructure at large.
SC stated that earlier, it was Engineering Degree by online mode and now Degree in Medicine and Surgery by online mode. The practical form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach involving actual application of principles taught in theory. Therefore, without practical training, there cannot be any Doctor who is expected to take care of the citizens of the country. Hence, the decision of the appellant not to grant provisional registration cannot be said to be arbitrary. Qualifying in the Screening Regulations is no proof of the clinical experience, if any, gained by the students. The Screening examination is based upon Optical Mark Reader (OMR) answers and has no correlation with any practical training.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “the services of the students should be used to augment health infrastructure in the country. Thus, it would be necessary that the students undergo actual clinical training of such duration and at such institutes which are identified by the appellant and on such terms and conditions, including the charges for imparting such training, as may be notified by the appellant. We are unable to agree with the High Court that instead of three months of clinical training in China, two months training would be sufficient for provisional registration apart from the 12 months of internship. The Courts are not expert in deciding an academic curriculum or the requirement of the clinical training which may be required to be satisfied by the students.”
Case Title: The National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh & Ors.
Bench: J. Hemant Gupta and J. V. Ramasubramanian
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2950-2951 OF 2022
Decided on: 29th April, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://creazilla.com/nodes/34709-medical-doctor-clipart