New Delhi: Referring to the fact that India has been promoting the Ayurvedic System of Medicine, the Delhi High Court bench recently opined that the institutes possessing the necessary infrastructure should be encouraged to set up Ayurvedic Medical Colleges for boosting up the infrastructure of Indian System of Medicine."Our country has, after the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, been...
New Delhi: Referring to the fact that India has been promoting the Ayurvedic System of Medicine, the Delhi High Court bench recently opined that the institutes possessing the necessary infrastructure should be encouraged to set up Ayurvedic Medical Colleges for boosting up the infrastructure of Indian System of Medicine.
"Our country has, after the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, been staunchly promoting the Ayurvedic system of medicine, and therefore, it is the need of the hour to encourage such institutes as the petitioner, which possess the necessary infrastructure for running ayurvedic medical colleges, to contribute to the bigger goal of strengthening the infrastructure of this system of medicine in the country," the bench noted providing relief to an institute seeking permission to start Ayurvedic College.
Such observations came from the High Court bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli while it was dealing with a case by an institute deemed to be University, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth. The institute wished to start a new Ayurvedic College with 100 BAMS seats for the academic year 2021-2022. However, its scheme of commenceing the said course was rejected by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board of the Indian System of Medicine (MARBISM) via an order dated 31.01.2022.
Apart from challenging this order, the petitioner institute also assailed the orders dated 24.02.2022 and 31.03.2022 passed by the respondent authorities by which the first and second appeal against the denial of Letter of Permission had also been rejected.
It was the case of the petitioner institute that it had earlier approached the Health and Family Welfare Department of Gujarat seeking a No Objection Certificate as required under the Indian Medicine Central Council Regulations, 2016. Consequently, the State Health Department on 29.08.2020 had issued a NOC after satisfying itself with the infrastructure and clinical material in the petitioner institute. At that time, the institute had got a nod for 60 BAMS seats.
Consequently, the institute approached the MARBBISM and submitted an application under section 13A of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 seeking permission to establish Sumandeep Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital. However, the application was rejected by Union Government for want of an updated "Consent of Affiliation" from the affiliating university.
On the other hand, the contention of the institute was that being a "Deemed to be University" as per the UGC norms, it did not require a "Consent for Affiliation". Therefore, aggrieved, the petitioner institute approached the Delhi High Court and after intervention of the court, the Union Government agreed to process the petitioner's application without insisting on a "Consent for Affiliation".
Meanwhile, the institute received a fresh NOC dated 26.03.2021 for 80 BAMS seats. However, since this NOC inadvertently referred to the academic year 2022-2023, a corrigendum was issued by Gujarat Government clarifying that the NOC, in favour of the petitioner, had in fact, been issued for the academic year 2021-2022.
Following this,MARBISM appointed a team of visitors to undertake an online verification of the petitioner's faculty and infrastructure on 14.09.2021. It was claimed by petitioner institute that it had shown all the relevant records in respect of both IPD and OPD, the doctors and nursing staff roster, etc. Accordingly, after inspection, the petitioner institute was issued a Letter of Intent by MARBISM for 80 BAMS seats.
However, after this, a virtual inspection was carried out by the Board for issuing the Letter of Permission. Meanwhile, the institute received a revised NOC for 100 BAMS seats from the State Government.
MARBISM, on the other hand, pointed out some deficiencies on the basis of the inspection including unavailability of Biometric attendance system, deficiencies in functionality of the hospital, inadequate teaching staff and hospital staff.
On the other hand, it was alleged by the petitioner institute that such deficiencies didn't existed and it was an attempt on the part of the respondent authorities to penalize the institute for approaching the HC bench earlier.
It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh that once the Central Government, after satisfying itself that the petitioner was a duly established medical college, which had been running for the last two years, having the necessary infrastructure to cater to students for the UG BAMS course, issued it the NOC on 29.08.2020, it could not now be said that the petitioner hospital was not functional.
He also pointed out that the hospital of the petitioner is functional since July, 2018 and is not only maintaining all its IPD and OPD registers properly, but is also successfully following the Computerized Central Registration System, as required under Regulation 7(3) of the MSR, 2016, which aspect was also duly verified by the visitors' team.
Further referring to the specific observations of the visitors' team, he also submitted that after examination of all the documents and registers, it was categorically found by the two visitors' teams that the college was having the required number of teaching and non-teaching staff.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Union Government and MARBISM contended that the court should not interfere with its decision to deny permission to the petitioner institute, which decision was based on an inspection of the institute's premises by the visitors' team constituted by the MARBISM.
Since the petitioner could not rectify the defects and address the deficiencies, it did not deserve to be granted any relief, contended the counsel for the Government.
Before dealing with the merits of the case, the HC bench noted that both the parties agreed that most of the deficiencies as noted in the denial order dated 31.01.2022 issued by the MARBISM, and the first appellate order dated 24.02.2022, except those in the impugned order dated 31.3.2022, stood rectified and only the deficiencies mentioned in the order dated 31.03.2022 remained.
The deficiencies as pointed out in the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 included- absence of minimum standard of requirements regarding maintaining the functionality of the hospital and the IPD OPD records, deficiency in maintaining the Roster of Doctor and Nursing Staff, and inadequate teaching staff (50%).
Referring to the observations made by the visitor's team, earlier affidavits furnished by six teachers of the institute, the bench noted, "Even though the respondents have really not pressed these aspects either in their counter affidavit or during their course of arguments, I find that, even otherwise, these grounds are extremely vague. None of the three impugned orders refer to the defects in the manner in which the petitioner is maintaining the OPD and IPD records, as also the doctors and nursing staff roster. In fact even the observations of the visitors‟ team are equally vague. Moreover, I cannot also lose sight of the fact that the state government while issuing the NOC, as also the respondent no.1 while forwarding the petitioner‟s application, had clearly found the hospital to be functional, which is evident from the certification given by the state government in the NOC.."
Further referring to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences &Ors and Medical Council of India vs. The Chairman, S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust and Anr., the HC bench observed, "I find that in the said decisions, the Apex Court has emphasized on the primacy to be given to the report of the inspection committee. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the inspection committee did not find any deficiency in the teaching staff of the petitioner. On the other hand, the visitation committee had not only specifically observed that each of the 12 teachers was fully eligible as per the MSR, 2016 but had also, in no uncertain terms certified that the college was having the requisite 12 teachers. I, therefore, find that these decisions do not, in any manner, forward the case of the respondent."
"In the light of aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion, that the conclusion arrived at by the respondent regarding the three purported deficiencies is wholly perverse and it would be against the interest of justice of the students as well as the general public to deny permission to the petitioner institute to establish the Ayurvedic Medical College with 80 seats, for which two inspections have been carried out on 14.09.2021 and 13.12.2021. The fact that the application of the petitioner, which was submitted way back on 23.09.2020, alongwith an NOC received from the State Government on 29.08.2020, which application was forwarded to the respondent no.2 on 27.01.2021, also shows that the respondent no.1 itself was prima facie satisfied that the petitioner hospital had been running for the last two years," the order further read.
Quashing the impugned order, the bench stated, "Our country has, after the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, been staunchly promoting the Ayurvedic system of medicine, and therefore, it is the need of the hour to encourage such institutes as the petitioner, which possess the necessary infrastructure for running ayurvedic medical colleges, to contribute to the bigger goal of strengthening the infrastructure of this system of medicine in the country. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it would be against public interest to deny permission to the petitioner college and let these 80 precious seats in BAMS to go waste."
"However, no orders are called for in respect of the impugned orders which 31.1.2022 and 24.02.2022 as they stand merged in the impugned order dated 31.03.2022. The respondents are directed to forthwith issue a letter of permission to the petitioner institute to participate in the remaining rounds of counselling for admission to 80 seats in BAMS for the academic year 2021-2022," it added.
To read the court order, click on the link below.
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd