Mumbai doc gets 1 year suspension by Medical Council for signing lab reports without Personal Supervision

The decision to remove his name from the registrar was taken by the Executive Committee of the Council after it observed that the doctor has not visited the laboratories nor supervised the process of testing on regular basis and he was pretending that the reports were being certified by him.

"Therefore, the multiple attachments of Dr. *** (Respondent) with different pathology laboratories and has given his pre-signed signature pads and has manipulated, jeopardized the public interest at large. Facilitated to those pathological labs for issuing of the reports showing issued at the instance of Dr. *** (Respondent). Further, the physicians and consultants are acting upon the report and advised medication on the basis of the pathology reports of the patients and if such any reports generated by technicians under the blank signature of any medical practitioner, then it create hazard in treatment to the patient in the society," stated the order.

Further noting that the doctor had submitted a forged affidavit to get rid of the Council inquiry, MMC mentioned in its order, "Therefore, in view of your attachments with multiple laboratories and submitting false affidavit to the Council, the Council has sentenced to remove the Registration No.-82143 of Dr. *** for the period of 1 year from medical Register of the Council from the date of the order. The said punishment of removal of registration shall be implemented after appeal period are over."

Also Read: Medical Council wrath on Pathologists for allowing use of Scanned Signatures

The Council was considering a complaint filed by another doctor, who alleged that the accused doctor owns a diagnosis center at Santacruze (east), Mumbai and being associated with several laboratories located at Vasai, Virar, Jogeshwari, Andheri, Kausa, Mumbra, Vikhroli, Ghatkopar, Thane, Prabhadevi, Chandivali, Malad, Nalasopara and signs their reports. The complainant alleged that it is practically impossible for a person to supervise pathology investigation as these labs are located at different places.

It was further claimed by the complainant doctor that the accused was signing the reports without day-to-day personal supervision or testing, quality control, microscopic examination, diagnosis, and clinical co-relation.

Such an act of signing at multiple places on the part of the accused doctor, without being present, is to protect, shield and guard the technician to issue reports by mere signing for some monetary gains, alleged the complainant.

While considering the complaint, the council initiated an inquiry in view of Section 22 of MMC Act, 1965 r.w. Rules 62-74 of MMC Rules, 1967 and issuing a show-cause notice, the complainant sought an explanation from the doctor.

After perusing the complaint, explanation of the accused doctor, and other supporting documents, the Council issued the Charge Sheet on 20/03/2020 and referred to several charges against the doctor including- his attachment with multiple/various pathological labs run by DMLT, where the pathological test reports are generated & certified through scan signatures of the doctor without supervision.

During the course of the hearing, the Council found out that the number of the laboratory reports were came to be issued on a single day i.e. on 03.02.2018 duly shown signed by the doctor for different labs which is highly impossible for one Pathologist to attend & supervise.

While considering the complaints, the State Council noted that the Apex court in its judgment dated 12/12/2017 had observed that, "the stand of the Medical Council of India that Laboratory Report can be counter signed only by a Registered Medical Practitioner with a post graduate qualification in pathology is correct."

Even though the Council had communicated the charge sheet to the doctor on 20/03/2020, the doctor had not filed a reply on the notice of the charges.

Meanwhile, the Council received an affidavit from Thane Pathologist Association stating that they are withdrawing the case against the accused doctor. On inquiry, the MMC found out that the Association had clarified that the affidavit document was forged and was not submitted by The Pathology Association. The accused doctor also didn't provide any explanation in this regard.

After listening to the contentions of both the parties, the Council referred to the decision of the Executive Committee which had noted,

"When the RMP and his advocate were asked to comment on the affidavit for withdrawal of the complaint, they were not forthcoming with any answer. Therefore, considering the nature of complaint & in the interest of society, RMP required to be refrained from medical practice. Therefore, in view of the above, Executive Committee has decided to remove the name of the RMP from the medical register for the period of 1 year."

Therefore, the Council as a form of punishment, removed the name of the accused doctor from the Register for 1 year.

However, the Council has clarified in its order that the doctor may prefer an appeal before the National Medical Commission, NMC.

"A medical practitioner or professional who is aggrieved by any action taken by a State Medical Council may prefer an appeal to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board against such action as per Section 30 (3) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 to NMC," added the order.

Further, the Council directed the Complainant to file a police complaint about the forgery of the document.