- Medical news & Guidelines
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Health news
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Madhya Pradesh
- Tamil Nadu
- Uttar Pradesh
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
BAMS practitioner fined Rs 2 lakh for insisting to be allowed ultrasounds under PC-PNDT Act
A BAMS practitioner has met the wrath of the Punjab and Haryana High court, for his repeated insistence that his degree be included under the ambit of the PC- PNDT Act. While the practitioner had filed a case in the high court for the same in the year 2011, and was rejected, the court fined him this time, when he filed a repeat petition recently.The petitioner is registered with the Board...
The petitioner is registered with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Haryana under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and is a proprietor of a Mediscan Centre in Haryana. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.6139 of 2011 to challenge the decision of the State of Haryana dated 27.09.2010 by which his claim to use ultrasound machine was turned down by observing that the use of Ultra-sound Machine
or Sonography by a BAMS (Ayurvedic) Degree holder has been expressly banned by the State Government vide notification dated 12.04.2004. The high court at that time dismissed the petition stating
The MBBS or any other similar qualification based upon modern medical science is totally distinct and different from the Ayurvedic system of medicines as is imparted in the BAMS degree course. Whether BAMS degree-holders are professionally capable to use Ultra-sound Machines or not is essentially a question which falls within the domain of the subject-experts. The fact that the legislature in its wisdom did not include in the 'registered medical practitioners' under PNDT Act except those who are possessing recognized medical qualifications under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, is a decision based upon intelligible criteria and satisfies the test of reasonable classification
Consequent to the decision, the practitioner did not challenge the decision in a higher court but approached the department of AYUSH with his plea. When the department of AYUSH did not respond to his insistence, the practitioner again went to the high court raising the same plea that the BAMS Doctors be also included in the definition of Section 2(m) of the Act.
Responding to the writ the counsel for the Govt Of India submitted that the petitioner is misusing the process of law as he is filing the same petitions time and again. They have submitted that the cause of action in the present petition is the same because the petitioner has obtained the
degree of BAMS under the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 whereas the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6139 of 2011 has specifically held that “in a way seeks a mandamus to re-write the said definition so as to include “medical practitioners” recognized/registered under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 also
After going through the arguments, the single bench observed that the petitioner was trying to misuse the process of law and fined him Rs 2 lakh as exemplary costs.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after examining the record, am of the considered opinion that this petition is totally unwarranted as the petitioner had already lost his case before this Court when he had filed the CWP No.6139 of 2011 and is still filing one writ petition after the other, misuing the process of law. Thus in such circumstances, this petition is dismissed and for misusing the process of law, exemplary costs is imposed upon him of `2 lakhs which shall be paid by him by depositing in the Registry of this Court within a period of one month. In case the cost is not paid, the High Court shall take appropriate action against the petitioner by moving an application for contempt in the present petition as the direction is issued to the petitioner to pay cost.
Attached is the judgement below
Meghna A Singhania is the founder and Editor-in-Chief at Medical Dialogues. An Economics graduate from Delhi University and a post graduate from London School of Economics and Political Science, her key research interest lies in health economics, and policy making in health and medical sector in the country.She is a member of the Association of Healthcare Journalists. She can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org. Contact no. 011-43720751