2 years Jail to Karnataka doctor for lending signatures to Mumbai pathlab

Navi Mumbai:  A Karnataka based pathologist has been sentenced to two-year imprisonment for lending his signature to a Mumbai based pathology lab that thereafter gave reports signed with the signature to the patients 

Holding two accused guilty for issuing lab reports without verification by an MD Pathologist, the Court of Civil Judge, Navi Mumbai recently sentenced them to imprisonment of two years. The duo, the Karnataka-based doctor as well as the DMLT who was running the Mumbai pathlab, had issued the forged pathology report for blood and urine tests to a doctor who is also a member of a state association of pathologists and microbiologists.

Apart from the jail term, the bench has also asked them to surrender their bail bond. Further, one of the accused has been asked to pay a fine of Rs 1,55,000, while the other has been asked to pay an amount of Rs 1,25,000.

The case concerned two accused Arvind Sridhar Yadav, and Vivekanand Parshuram Honkeri. Complainant Dr Raju Jairaj Rao, who is a doctor and a member of the Maharashtra Association of Practicing Pathologists and Microbiologists Committee, accused Arvind Yadav was not entitled to use the prefix "Dr" as he did not have the necessary qualification. Despite being a DMLT lab assistant, it was alleged that he signed and issued lab test reports bearing his signature.

On the other hand, the allegations against the other accused Vivekanand Honekeri were that despite hailing from Karnataka and working as a permanent and full-time lecturer at Karnataka Al Amin Medical College, he signed the lab report in Mumbai in absentia that is without being present. The complainant claimed that the report given to him was false, fabricated, and fraudulently prepared and therefore the accused cheated and breached the trust of the complainant and the public at large.

Also Read: Allow all pathologists, microbiologists to conduct Rapid Antigen Testing: MAPPM tell Govt

Consequently, the accused were charged under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s. 33 (1), 33(A) & 36 of Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act. Both the accused, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be falsely implicated in the present case by the informant.

After the recording of evidence of the prosecution, both the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Although they denied all the allegations leveled against them, they could not give any evidence to support their defense.

The complainant, on the other hand, submitted that during the survey of the association they checked out the authenticity of various laboratories (lab) at Navi Mumbai. From the documents produced by labs they had cross-checked with the Maharashtra Medical Council regarding the authenticity of permission of labs. At that time, they came across with a report issued by Dr V.P.Honkeri and Dr Arvind Yadav.

The report showed the degree of Dr Honkeri as M.D. Path and degree of Arvind Yadav as B.Sc DMLT, N.D, and it also bore their signatures. When the association enquired regarding the registration of Dr Honkeri, they came to know that even though he was a registered medical practitioner with the Indian Medical Council, he did not have any registration with the Maharashtra Medical Council. They came to know from website that he was working in Karnataka as a full-time professor for the last three years and as per the report issued in June 2014, he was not at Navi Mumbai, where the lab is, but he was actually working in Karnataka.

Apart from this, the association came to know that "Dr Yadav" was not practising as MBBS and he did not have any license for practising as a doctor or to prescribe medicine. He was not registered under Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.

It was further informed by the complainant that in order to cross-examine the authenticity of the lab, they had sent Dr Prasad Kulkarni as a dummy patient to Pratima Clinical Diagnosis Center. Dr Kulkarni got tested for random blood sugar and the report showed signature of accused on the letterhead of Pratima Clinic Diagnosis Center. Following this, the Association had filed a complaint to the Police.

The counsel for the accused contended that it was not necessary for the pathologist to always be at the Pathology, and therefore, the tests conducted at Pratima Clinic in the absence of Dr Honkeri were not void or illegal. Further, he argued that being registered under Indian Medical Council, Dr Honkeri did not require to get registered under Maharashtra Medical Council Act.

Taking note of the contentions, the bench perused the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and its Amendments in 1964, 1993, and 2001. Besides, the bench also relied on the Bombay HC order in the case of Nageshwar Basantrao Dubey V/s. Union of India and others, Section 17(3A) of the Maharashtra Act, and noted,

"Thus, in the light of above­mentioned provisions and observation of Hon'ble High Court, from the testimony of this witness, it is proved that medical practitioner is required to be register one either Indian or Maharashtra Counsel. Therefore, he is found cogent and trustworthy as there is nothing major contradiction appeared on record."

However, the counsel for the accused argued that Arvind Yadav was a naturopath and therefore, Council for Natural Medical Lucknow identified him as Dr. Arvind Sridhar Yadav. Referring to this contention the bench noted, "it is clear observation of Hon'ble Apex Court that the Naturopathy person is not entitled to prefix abbreviation like doctor. Hence, he is not entitled to issue and verify any test lab report, as a doctor. The person doctor must be registered one as mention in Ayurvedic Doctors Association case."

Regarding Dr. Honkeri, the bench observed,

"In view of oral evidence on record it is crystal clear that accused no.2 is pathology MD working as fulltime lecturer at Al Amin College, Karnataka . There is not a single suggestion that he was having regular visit at Pratima Diagnosis and therefore, check out the test conducted by lab technician."

Therefore, the bench mentioned in the order,

"Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above clearly mention that DMLT person is not entitled to issue the report unless and until verified and signed by MD Pathologist. There is not a single suggestion regarding this, nor even at the time of statement of recording 313 accused has put forth this defence that only DMLT person is entitled to run lab and issue report. Hence, the upshot of above discussion is that, accused no.1 is not entitled to prefix abbreviation "Dr." inspite of that he used it at the time of issuing report."

"It is also proved that accused no.2 is full time working as a Professor at Al Amin College. Thus, neither the test in Pratima Diagnosis Center had been conducted under his supervision nor he is having occasion to supervise work of accused no.1. It is crystal clear that, accused no.2 is not 'superman' or 'spiderman' who will reach Navi Mumbai daily to observe and verify the process adopted by accused no.2.," further noted the bench.

Holding both the accused guilty, the court noted,

"The oral and documentary evidence before me sufficiently indicate intention of dishonesty on the part of accused persons to induce any person deceived to deliver money. For that purpose they had signed a report with the knowledge that it was not prepared under observation or after verification of accused no.2 and with the knowledge that accused no.1 is not having authority to sign over it."

"As discussed above, the dishonesty of accused has been proved. There is doubt created over signature of accused no.2 and it is proved that accused no.1 is not having authority as a doctor to sign over it. The very intention of accused is to gain money from the patients who approached to the lab. Automatically it results wrongful loss to a patient who is having right to get diagnosis his disease , test from lawfully qualified person," it added.

While deciding on the sentence for the accused, the bench noted,

"It appears from record that both the accused are well educated and know all the pons and cons of law. Therefore, when the State makes the rule that only DMLT person is not entitled to run the lab independently but there should be qualified MD Physician accompanied with him and the report should be issued only after proper examination and verification by MD Physician, accused in furtherance of their common intention decided to go by the rules. Technically, it was shown that the MD Physician i.e. accused no.2 is accompanied with accused no.1. However, actually accused no.2 is practicing in Karnataka, as a full­time professor."

The bench sentenced both the accused jail term under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and mentioned that "All the imprisonment sentences shall run concurrently."

Therefore, the accused have been sentenced to jail for two years and they have been asked to surrender their bail bonds.

To read the court order, click on the link below.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/fake-lab-report-177742.pdf

Also Read: Paramedicals running Independent Laboratories in Mumbai: PCI told to take action