Form F needs to be filled by doctors, it is not clerical job: High Court
Aurangabad: Referring to the Supreme Court judgment which had clarified that filling up Form 'F' is not a clerical job and needs to be filled by a medical practitioner, the Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a plea by a gynaecologist, booked around a decade ago for incomplete F forms.
The authorities during a surprise visit at the sonography centre-cum-hospital of the doctor, had seized eight such incomplete 'F' forms and following that the doctor had been booked and her sonography machine was also seized.
Although the doctor had challenged the initiation of case proceedings against her before the High Court, the bench comprising of Justice Surendra Tavade turned down the plea and was quoted by TOI saying that "Said order is legal, valid and proper."
It is mandatory for medical professionals to fill up the F form. Taking rigorous steps towards stopping female feticide as well as decreasing the roaring gender gap in India, form F was introduced under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act [PCPNDT Act], 1994. Such a form was filled in as an undertaking that the parents of the unborn child are not carrying out a sinography or an ultrasound with the intent of knowing the gender of the fetus.
Back in 2011, during a surprise visit at the Beed-based gynaecologist's sonography centre-cum-hospital, the authorities had seized eight incomplete F forms and following that, on the basis of a complaint by naib tehsildar, the doctor was booked under relevant sections of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, or PCPNDT Act. Apart from this, the sonography machine from the hospital of the doctor was also seized.
Following this, the Parli-Vaijnath-based judicial magistrate first class had initiated proceedings in the doctor's case. Consequently, seeking quashing of the process, the gynaecologist had approached the HC back in 2012.
The Additional public prosecutor R P Gaur pointed out that in light of the services that the medical profession renders, it is imperative to maintain up to the mark medical records. Prosecutor further went on to quote the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 which deems a fault in maintenance of medical records as misconduct.
The prosecution said, "In case the information kept vague, the violation of the act would be blatant and unchecked and an offence can never be detected," quotes FPJ
Advocate SG Chapalgaonkar, the counsel for the doctor, had contended in the petition that the complaint hasn't been filed by an authorized person. As per the amendment, now the civil surgeon can authorize any surgeon for carrying out inspection and filing a complaint.
Observing that the Civil surgeon had the authority to file the complaint, the HC bench dismissed the contention and noted,
"The prosecution can lead evidence to prove the charge leveled against the applicant. Therefore, the trial court has not considered the said aspect. Admittedly, the prosecution is required to lead evidence before the charge. If it is found that the naib tehsildar had no authority to initiate action, then the applicant can be discharged. Said aspect is dependent upon the evidence to be led on record. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions that the complaint was not filed by the authorised person."
TOI adds that the HC also cited the Apex Court order which had clarified that the filing up of the 'F' form is not clerical but needs to be done by a medical practitioner. Thus, dismissing the plea by the gynaecologist, the HC bench noted,
"It appears from the impugned order that the trial court has considered the averments made in the complaint and the documents produced on record. Therefore, it can be said that the trial court had applied its mind before issuance of process. Said order is legal, valid and proper."
The HC has, however, granted interim relief to Dhakne from arrest till October 26 to allow her to approach the Supreme Court, adds FPJ
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.