- 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
High Court dismisses review petition of Ayush Practitioners to practise allopathy
Delhi High Court recently dismissed review petition of ISM practitioners finding no grounds for reviewNew Delhi:Finding no grounds for review, the double bench of Chief Justice Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in the Delhi High Court is reported to have dismissed the review petition filed by All India Medicines Graduates Association, almost closing all legal...
New Delhi:Finding no grounds for review, the double bench of Chief Justice Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in the Delhi High Court is reported to have dismissed the review petition filed by All India Medicines Graduates Association, almost closing all legal doors to allow AYUSH practitioners to practice allopathy .
The earlier judgement given by the hon'ble court had clearly implied that practitioners of Indian System of Medicines including BUMS, BAMS, BIMS, BHMS and other ISM practitioners, cannot be allowed to practice modern medicine under the provisions of the law
"….that the definition of "Indian Medicine‟ in the Indian Medicine Act or of "integrated medicine‟ in DBCP Act or the Notification dated 19th May, 2004 of the CCIM cannot be read as entitling those registered in the State register of Indian Medicine maintained by DBCP to practise modern scientific system of medicine in any form regulated by the MCI Act and the DMC Act…."
Read : BIMS, BUMS, BAMS cannot prescribe allopathic medicines: High Court
Aggrieved with said decision of the Delhi High court of 8th April, 2016, the practitioners of ISM under the umbrella of All India Medicines Graduates Association filed a review petition with the hon'ble court.
One of the reasons cited by the counsels of the respondents ( that is organisations representing ISM) stated that no oral arguments had been made by them before the said order was reserved. However, the court clearly pointed out to the counsel that enough chance was given to all parties to argue, however, as implied by the judgement, it was the counsel for the ISM practitioners who did not appear/chose to argue at that point. Hence this cannot be considered a reason for the review.
The court then went on to dismiss the review petition finding No grounds for review
You can read the full order by clicking on the following link
13 may 2016 order
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 email@example.com. Contact no. 011-43720751