Fake Medical Certificates by Doctors: Removal of name from Medical Register not the only Penalty, says court

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court bench recently clairifed that removing the name of a doctor, charged with Professional Misconduct, from the erstwhile Medical Council of India's (MCI) register is not the only possible punishment.

Further referring to Regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2022, the HC bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad explained that removal of a doctor's name from the MCI register was only of of the possible punishments, but not the only one.

"Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, prescribes that professionals are bound by law to give certificates in their personal capacity. It is stated that if a certificate which is given by a medical practitioner is untrue, misleading or improper, is liable to have his name removed from the rolls. The period of the removal is mentioned in the order debarring such practitioner from practicing. Regulation 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, gives power to the Medical Council to award punishment in case of misconduct," noted the HC bench.

"From a perusal of the Rules it cannot be said that for the misconduct as prescribed in Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, the only penalty that can be levied is one of removal from the rolls and that the penalty stipulated in Regulation 7.7 is excluded by implication from powers given to the Medical Board in Regulation 8.2. Regulation 8.2 gives power to the Medical Council to impose penalties in case of misconduct including that, which is one mentioned in Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. The penalty may extend to removal of the practitioner from the rolls altogether or for a specified time as prescribed in Regulation 8.2 & 8.3," explained the Court.

These observations were made by the High Court while considering the plea by a complainant/petitioner, who approached the High Court bench challenging the order of the erstwhile MCI, which only issued a warning to 2 doctors for improper issuance of medical certificate.

Earlier, the petitioner had approached the UP State Medical Council against Dr. Kumar and Dr. Lalchandani for issuing a certificate on 09.07.2014 stating that the petitioner was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The petitioner/complainant, who herself is a doctor, alleged that the concerned two doctors issued the certificate even without examining the petitioner/complainant.

Consequently, the UP State Medical Council warned the said doctors not to issue certificates/opinions without examining the patients. The said decision was challenged by the complainant before the Medical Council of India.

When the matter reached the MCI, the council examined the petitioner, who is a doctor and MD in Anesthesia, and the concerned doctors. Taking note of the fact that those two concerned doctors had been warned by the UP State Council, the MCI held, "The Committee after detailed discussion and deliberation is of the unanimous opinion that there is no infirmity in the order dated 04.06.2018 of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council and therefore, the Ethics Committee decided to uphold the same."

Challenging this order, the petitioner/complainant approached the Delhi High Court. It was contended by the petitioner's counsel that Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, does not postulate any punishment by way of warning rather the only punishment that is stipulated under the Regulations is of removal of the Doctor from the rolls of the Medical Council.

On the other hand, the counsel for NMC, which replaced erstwhile MCI, referred to Regulation 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, to contend that the Medical Council has the power to award any punishment as deemed necessary and it has also the power to award the punishment of removal of name from the rolls.

The Court perused the concerned regulations. Regulation 7.7 states, "7.7 Signing Professional Certificates, Reports and other Documents: Registered medical practitioners are in certain cases bound by law to give, or may from time to time be called upon or requested to give certificates, notification, reports and other documents of similar character signed by them in their professional capacity for subsequent use in the courts or for administrative purposes etc. Such documents, among others, include the ones given at Appendix –4. Any registered practitioner who is shown to have signed or given under his name and authority any such certificate, notification, report or document of a similar character which is untrue, misleading or improper, is liable to have his name deleted from the Register."

However, Regulation 8.2 of the said Regulations mentions, "8.2 It is made clear that any complaint with regard to professional misconduct can be brought before the appropriate Medical Council for Disciplinary action. Upon receipt of any complaint of professional misconduct, the appropriate Medical Council would hold an enquiry and give opportunity to the registered medical practitioner to be heard in person or by pleader. If the medical practitioner is found to be guilty of committing professional misconduct, the appropriate Medical Council may award such punishment as deemed necessary or may direct the removal altogether or for a specified period, from the register of the name of the delinquent registered practitioner. Deletion from the Register shall be widely publicized in local press as well as in the publications of different Medical Associations/ Societies/Bodies."

After perusing these rules, the HC bench opined that "...it cannot be said that for the misconduct as prescribed in Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, the only penalty that can be levied is one of removal from the rolls..."

"Regulation 8.2 gives power to the Medical Council to impose penalties in case of misconduct including that, which is one mentioned in Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional  tConduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002," further noted the bench.

The counsel for NMC also placed reliance upon Allahabad High Court order in the case of Sukh Dev v. State of U.P and the Kerala HC order in the case of State Tax Officer, Investigation Branch-I & Ors. v. Y Balakrishnan.

Taking note of the rules and also perusing the above-mentioned judgments, the Delhi HC bench opined, "The contention of the Petitioner that the only penalty which can be imposed on a Doctor who gives a certificate which is untrue, misleading or improper is the removal of the name of the Doctor from the rolls of the register of Medical Council cannot be accepted."

"Regulation 7.7 only postulates that a Doctor who gives an untrue, misleading or improper certificate can be removed from the rolls of the register of Medical Council. However, it does not mean that that the only punishment that can be given to such a Doctor is the removal of the name from the rolls of the register of Medical Council. Regulation 8.2 on the other hand deals with punishments that can be imposed on a Doctor for his professional misconduct. Regulation 8.2 gives power to the Medical Council to impose any punishment as is deemed necessary which can also include the removal of the name of the Doctor from the rolls of the register of Medical Council permanently or for a specified period," it further observed. With these observations, the HC bench dismissed the plea.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-hc-order-223594.pdf

Also Read: Failing to furnish medical records amounts to professional misconduct, infringes patients' rights: Madras HC