Delhi High Court
Sankalp Charitable Trust vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 28 May, 2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 28th May, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 3595/2014 & CM No.7334/2014 (for stay).
SANKALP CHARITABLE TRUST ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Ankit
Rajgarhia & Mr. Ravinder Katna,
Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B. V. Niren, Mr. Prasouk Jain &
Mr. Ajit Jain, Adv. for R-2 UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks (i) mandamus
directing the respondents i.e. Government of NCT of Delhi and Government
of India and Commissioner of Police, to constitute an Expert Committee to
examine the role of informal health service providers in providing primary
health services to the slum dwellers, residents of unauthorized colonies and
villagers of Delhi; (ii) a direction to the respondents to provide for
mechanism / rules /regulations for recognition of rights of informal health
service providers to provide limited / basic primary health care to people of
Delhi; (iii) a direction to the respondents to formulate a policy to utilize the
services of informal health service providers in providing primary health
care to people living in slums, villages and unauthorized colonies; (iv) a
direction to the respondents to lay down rules / regulations /
instructions for regulating the services of informal health providers; and, (v)
a direction to the respondents to provide mechanism for providing training
either directly or through non-governmental organizations to provide
training to informal health service providers to enable them to provide
limited primary health care in the nature of first aid to people.
2. The writ petition is accompanied with an application for interim relief
restraining the respondent Delhi Police from taking coercive measures
against the locally available unskilled health care service providers during
the pendency of the writ petition.
3. The petitioner claims to be a Charitable Trust and does not claim to be
involved in providing health services to the citizens of Delhi. We have thus
wondered the intent of the petitioner in seeking the interim relief of
restraining Delhi Police from taking action against unskilled health care
service providers.
4. Expressions "unskilled health care service providers" and "informal
health service providers providing primary / limited / basic health services"
have been used in the writ petition in the context of persons professing to
practice and practicing medicine, without being qualified to do so; in other
words, in the context of persons who in common parlance are known as
"quacks". The Supreme Court in Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel (1996)
4 SCC 332 held that a person who does not have knowledge of a particular
system of medicine but practices in that System is a quack and a mere
pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan
and liable to be proceeded against.
5. Section 27 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 titled "Privileges
of persons who are enrolled on the Indian Medical Register" provides that
persons whose name are for the time being borne on the Indian Medical
Register shall be entitled to practice as a medical practitioner and to recover
in respect of such practice, the expenses incurred and / or the fee to which he
may be entitled to. It is not the case of the petitioner that the persons for
whose benefit the petition is filed, have their names on the Indian Medical
Register. As far as the city of Delhi is concerned, Section 15(5) of the Delhi
Medical Council Act, 1997 provides that any person servicing or practicing
modern scientific system of medicine shall be registered with the Council
and without registration, it so servicing or practicing, even if qualified to do,
shall be liable for action. Sections 26 and 27 thereof provide penalties for
representing to be so registered when not and for falsely assuming to be a
medical practitioner. It is only after obtaining the requisite qualification from
approved institutes and after getting the name entered on the register
maintained for the purpose that a person is entitled to practice in the field of
medicine i.e. to render health care. Rendering of health care services and /
or practicing the profession of medicine, without being so qualified, is an
offence.
6. In fact the reason for filing of this petition is the issuance of directions
by this Court in bail applications filed by such quacks, to Delhi Police to
take action against quacks in Delhi and in pursuance whereto the Delhi
Police has issued Circular No.2/2014 for taking action against the quacks
under the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997.
7. We are thus of the opinion that this petition rather than being in public
interest instead appears to be motivated.
8. Moreover, the petition seeks a direction contrary to law and which
cannot be granted by the Court. The Supreme Court in Maharishi
Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159 held that the
Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law, nor the Court
can direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions. It was
held that the High Court cannot be generous or liberal in issuing such
directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned
to violate their own statutory Rules & Regulations. As per the law, a person
not qualified to provide medical treatment / care to another, is not entitled to
do so.
9. As far as the directions for appointment of an Expert Committee and
for framing of a scheme is concerned, the same are purely governmental
functions and it is not in the domain of this Court to advise the government
on policy matters. It is also not as if the government is oblivious; proposals
have already been mooted for floating a medical qualification / course of a
shorter duration for providing such health care services particularly in rural
areas.
10. Notice in this regard may also be taken of State of Punjab Vs. Ram
Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in judgment dated 6th September, 2010 in LPA No.437/2010 titled
J.K. Sawhney Vs. Punjab National Bank laying down that though it is the
Constitutional obligation of the State under Article 21 of the Constitution to
safeguard the life of every person and such right is a right to lead healthy life
but no law mandates that every citizen is entitled to free medical treatment
without any limitation on the amount that can be claimed as reimbursement.
It was further observed that no State or country can have unlimited resources
and provision of facilities cannot be unlimited and that the courts would not
interfere with any opinion formed by the Government.
11. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- payable
to Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers' Social Security and Welfare
Fund, New Delhi.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the said Welfare Fund.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MAY 28, 2014
pp/gsr..
