PCPNDT Act requires strict implementation, but without unwarranted harassment of medical practitioners: HC relief to radiologist, doctor wife

In an order dated September 7, Justice Bharati Dangre stated that this case highlighted the misuse of power by the authorities and the unwarranted persecution faced by medical practitioners. She observed;

"This is just another case where medical practitioners are subjected to persecution causing a lot of harassment...The present case is a classic example where it can be said that the respondents have clearly misused their powers."

According to TOI, the case concerned radiologist Dr Chandrashekhar Gattani and his wife Dr Shruti who works at Mayo Institute. The complaint stemmed from an incident on July 5, 2011, where Dr Chandrashekhar Gattani's clinic was sealed based on inadequate evidence, and the complaint was filed three years later.

On July 5, 2011, when the authorised officer visited Dr Gattani's clinic, he was not there. Meanwhile, Dr Shruti was operating an OPD with a sonography machine. She did not produce referral slips, consent forms, case cards etc. The clinic was sealed on grounds that an unauthorised person was operating it. The sonography machine was also sealed. However, on July 13, the clinic was unsealed after Dr Gattani submitted its registration certificate, sonography receipts and consent forms.

Also Read: PCPNDT Violation: Radiologist Sentenced To 3 Years Jail For Conducting Sex Determination Tests

Examining the case, Justice Dangre said section 4 (3) contemplates conduct of pre-natal diagnostic tests by a qualified person. But the authority admittedly had no evidence to establish that Dr Shruti operated the machine. Also, the fact remained that the complaint was not based on material to establish that an unqualified person was operating the registered clinic. Dr Shruti said she attended the clinic on a call from an employee and was unable to offer documents.

Dangre further said "surprisingly" though the alleged incident took place in 2011, the complaint was filed after 3 years. "This speaks volumes," she said, emphasizing that the Act was enacted to prevent sex selection before or after conception but urged caution to avoid baseless accusations against medical professionals, hoping that the court's observations would discourage such arbitrary actions by authorities. It was noted;

"The Act requires strict implementation, but it does not warrant such obsolete exercises which but for harassment of the medical practitioners, do not yield any outcome."

She further noted that said medical superintendent and appropriate authority are authorized to inspect clinics to ensure compliance of the Act and rules. However;

"It is surely not the prerogative of this authority to file frivolous complaints merely on the basis of assumptions and surmises, which would ultimately result into grave humiliation to the professionals and also have its adverse impact on their clinics, since it is possible that a blemish will tarnish their image and would adversely affect the medical profession as a whole.''

As per a recent TOI report, the court, subsequently, quashed and dismissed the complaint against the doctor couple and noted;

"With only hope and trust" it is expected that in future the authority exercises "caution and avoid all such unwarranted accusations against" medical professionals. She did not impose costs on the authorities, expecting the observations "would deter them from acting in such an arbitrary manner."