Medical Practitioners seek permission to practice multiple systems of medicine, HC asks Centre, NMC to respond
Kochi: While considering a plea by doctors seeking permission to practice multiple systems of medicine, the Kerala High Court has recently sought to know the response of the National Medical Commission (NMC) and the Central Government.
The High Court bench comprising of Justice V.G. Arun has issued notice in the plea that challenged the Clause (F) in Chapter 2 of the National Medical Commission, Registered Medical Practitioner (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 2022.
It has been clarified by NMC in the concerned Clause F (Chapter 2) that, "A person qualified in more than one system of medicine should decide which system he wants to practice. Once licensed to practice Modern medicine under NMC Act, he shall not practice another system of medicine simultaneously. Short courses in other systems of medicine do not qualify a practitioner to practice and prescribe in that system of medicine."
The Apex medical commission has listed as a L2 violation, meaning that any doctor violating this rule may face suspension of the licence to practice for up to one month.
This rule, which prevents registered medical practitioners from practicing any other system of medicine, has now been challenged before the Kerala High Court by two doctors. One of them is a registered medical practitioner in MBBS under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and in BAMS (Indigenous Medicine) under the same statute. The other doctor practices psychiatry and is a registered medical practitioner both under MBBS and BHMS (Homeopathic Medicine).
The doctors have prayed to the Court for issuing a proper direction to the authorities including NMC and the Central Government for conducting a public hearing to consider objections and comments from the general public.
Further hearing in this matter would be conducted in the next week.
As per the latest media report by Live Law, the doctors in their plea have pointed out that the said Clause (F) violates their fundamental rights of practicing any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it makes it mandatory for the doctors to choose between their different areas of expertise. Besides, they also contended that the Clause was contradictory to the objectives laid down in the Preamble of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
Further, the plea moved through Advocates Vipin P Varghese, Adarsh Mathew, Kevin Mathew George, Meera Elsa George, and Merline Mathew of V.J. Mathew & Co., has also pointed out that the concerned Clause F transgresses the powers of both the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine along with the National Commission for Homeopathy. Referring to the Constitution, the doctors have further claimed the restriction imposed on the doctor was excessive and could not be justified.
The petitioners, who are the President and General Secretary of the Indian Association of Integrative Medicine and Research (IAIMR), have also informed the court that they had submitted as representation before the authorities via email dated 20th June, 2022 stating that the impugned clause was illegal and violative of Article 19(1)(g). Besides, on the same day, they had also submitted an objection via email to the Prime Minister and another one to the Chief Minister of Kerala on June 21, 2022.
Challenging the concerned Clause F, the doctors in their plea contended that "a doctor specialized in both streams is the best judge who can decide as to which systems of medicine needs to be prescribed to patients" and the impugned clause violated this right.
The plea also referred to the fact that even though NMC had placed the draft regulations in public domain in accordance with the provisions of the NMC Act, the statute has no provisions for considering objections, nor any provision for public hearing.
At this outset, the doctors submitted that despite numerous representation, the Act did not have any mandatory provision for making the authorities consider such representations or conduct public hearing. Therefore, there was no effective legal remedy available under the Act and they were left with no choice but to approach the Court for a specific direction, the plea submitted.
Also Read: Should and Must: NMC proposes New Code of Medical Ethics in draft guidelines, Details
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.