Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sorry quack, you are no doc

Sorry quack, you are no doc

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jun 2, 2010   modified Modified on Jun 2, 2010


Quacks cannot play with the lives of “little Indians” on the strength of questionable certificates, the Supreme Court ruled today in a judgment with far-reaching consequences if enforced strictly.

The court said an “unqualified, unregistered and unauthorised medical practitioner” who had no “valid” qualification, degree or diploma couldn’t be permitted to “exploit poor Indians” on the basis of a certificate granted by an institution.

The vacation bench cleared the air after some people with such certificates moved the court.

The ruling came on appeals filed by some vaidyas (physicians) who had obtained degrees or diplomas from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad, a society not recognised in Uttar Pradesh after 1967.

The Centre had filed counter-appeals, seeking to stop the vaidyas from practising as the Allahabad institute was not recognised by the Medical Council of India. The court upheld the government’s stand.

The two-judge bench made it clear the ruling applied to any institute that did not enrol students or impart any education or enjoy any affiliation or recognition but was handing out degrees without knowing even the “basic qualification of the candidates”.

The judges said the court had a “duty to strike a balance” between the right of a vaidya to practise, particularly when he didn’t have the requisite qualifications, and the constitutional right of a “little Indian” (common man) to be protected against “mal-medical treatment”.

The case had come before the court after the “vaidyas”, who had degrees or diplomas like Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna from the Allahabad institute, were barred from practising by Delhi High Court.

These persons had been permitted under the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953, to register themselves as vaidyas in Rajasthan, but the high court, in its judgment last November, said they didn’t have any of the qualifications laid down by the Central Medical Council Act, 1970.

The Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners then moved the Supreme Court. The association argued that such a restriction infringed on their right to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Once their names had been enrolled in the state register, they were entitled to practise, the association claimed.

But the apex court said the Allahabad institute was neither a university, nor a deemed university or an educational board. “It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field,” it said, rejecting the plea of the appellants who had got their degrees after 1967.

The court said there was nothing to show that these persons had any academic qualification — matriculation, intermediate or any other — to make them eligible for such certificates.

“There is no document disclosing as what was the institution/school where such persons had got admission… (and) attended classes and practicals in laboratories…” the bench said.

The court said study of medical sciences required classroom attendance and proper technical training under a competent faculty as doctors play an important role in maintaining public health.

The bench also pointed out that the right to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution was not absolute and that there were provisions under which reasonable restrictions could be imposed.


The Telegraph, 2 June, 2010, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100602/jsp/frontpage/story_12513841.jsp


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close