Medical Council cannot remove the name until Doctor Convicted by Criminal Court: Madras Hight Court
Another much awaited relief in PCPNDT Case.
"The question of removing the Doctor's name from the register of Medical Council would arise only in the event of the Doctor being convicted by the Criminal Court" - Madras High Court. This was the observation made by the Madras High Court to the  Tamil Nadu Medical Council
Facts of the case :
Case of the Petitioner.
1. The Petitioner Doctor, , was running the Ultra Sound Clinic with all the due permissions under PCPNDT Act.
2. In February-2014, the concerned Authorities made visit to the Clinic and demanded various record for the period of 2012-2014. The Petitioner complied the same with necessary details and there was no further action on part of Appropriate Authority .
3. In May-2014, there was a surprise Inspection from the Concerned Authorities and after interaction with the staff and one patient, unilaterally without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard concluded erroneously that the said patient came for fetal sex determination and subsequent feticide.
4. It followed the action U/Sec/30(1) and machines were seized and scan room was sealed and registration granted to Scan center was also suspended and further criminal action under PCPNDT Act and MTP Act was initiated. The PEtitioner filed appeal before District AA, but its pending for more time than prescribed.
5. And later part is shocking !! The petitioner read a news item in 'The Hindu' Tamil Daily dated 16.02.2016 to the effect that his name has been removed from the register of Tamil Nadu Medical Council and he was debarred from his medical practice for a period of five years. He received the official letter to that effect, in which it was found that the order was passed on 17.02.2016 !!
6. The Petitioner was never given an opportunity of being heard and hence he approached Hon. High Court.
Held :
1. The Respondents supported all the orders.
2. In the instant case, though the charges have been framed against the petitioner still trial is pending. But, by way of impugned order, the 1st respondent has removed the name of the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu Medical Register, for a period of five years from 15.02.2016 or until further orders.
3.The question of removing the petitioner's name for a period of five years from the medical register would arise only in the event of the petitioner being convicted by the Criminal Court.
4. The 1st respondent (i.e. Medical Council) can only suspend the registration of the petitioner till the disposal of the criminal case
The court observed
Indeed, the Doctor got a substantial relief. Nevertheless, the Criminal cases will be decided on its own merits.
Thanks and Regards
Adv. Rohit Erande
Pune.
You can read the full judgement by clicking on the following link
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54443389/
"The question of removing the Doctor's name from the register of Medical Council would arise only in the event of the Doctor being convicted by the Criminal Court" - Madras High Court. This was the observation made by the Madras High Court to the  Tamil Nadu Medical Council
Facts of the case :
Case of the Petitioner.
1. The Petitioner Doctor, , was running the Ultra Sound Clinic with all the due permissions under PCPNDT Act.
2. In February-2014, the concerned Authorities made visit to the Clinic and demanded various record for the period of 2012-2014. The Petitioner complied the same with necessary details and there was no further action on part of Appropriate Authority .
3. In May-2014, there was a surprise Inspection from the Concerned Authorities and after interaction with the staff and one patient, unilaterally without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard concluded erroneously that the said patient came for fetal sex determination and subsequent feticide.
4. It followed the action U/Sec/30(1) and machines were seized and scan room was sealed and registration granted to Scan center was also suspended and further criminal action under PCPNDT Act and MTP Act was initiated. The PEtitioner filed appeal before District AA, but its pending for more time than prescribed.
5. And later part is shocking !! The petitioner read a news item in 'The Hindu' Tamil Daily dated 16.02.2016 to the effect that his name has been removed from the register of Tamil Nadu Medical Council and he was debarred from his medical practice for a period of five years. He received the official letter to that effect, in which it was found that the order was passed on 17.02.2016 !!
6. The Petitioner was never given an opportunity of being heard and hence he approached Hon. High Court.
Held :
1. The Respondents supported all the orders.
2. In the instant case, though the charges have been framed against the petitioner still trial is pending. But, by way of impugned order, the 1st respondent has removed the name of the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu Medical Register, for a period of five years from 15.02.2016 or until further orders.
3.The question of removing the petitioner's name for a period of five years from the medical register would arise only in the event of the petitioner being convicted by the Criminal Court.
4. The 1st respondent (i.e. Medical Council) can only suspend the registration of the petitioner till the disposal of the criminal case
The court observed
The question of removing the petitioner's name for a period of five years from the medical register would arise only in the event of the petitioner being convicted by the Criminal Court. But, in the instant, only charges were framed by the criminal Court against the petitioner and trial is pending before the Criminal Court. Therefore, the 1st respondent can only suspend the registration of the petitioner till the disposal of the criminal case. Under such circumstance, I am of the opinion, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is not in accordance with the provisions under Section 23(2) of the PCPNDT Act
Indeed, the Doctor got a substantial relief. Nevertheless, the Criminal cases will be decided on its own merits.
Thanks and Regards
Adv. Rohit Erande
Pune.
You can read the full judgement by clicking on the following link
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54443389/
Next Story