2 years Internship for FMGs without Clinical Training: SC Seeks response from NMC, Centre
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has recently issued notice to the Cental Government and the National Medical Commission (NMC) on a plea challenging the decision of the Apex medical body requiring the foreign medical graduates to undergo Compulsory Rotatory Medical Internship (CRMI) for two years for making up with their inadequate clinical training.
Seeking to know the response from NMC and Union Government, the Supreme Court division bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath decided to consider this matter along with a batch of petitions filed by FMGs from China, Ukraine, Philippines who could not complete their clinical training due to issues including the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russia-Ukraine war. These medicos from abroad are demanding accommodation in the Indian Medical Institutes.
All these pleas will be heard together by the Apex Court on Wednesday, i.e. January 25, 2023.
The matter concerns the decision of the Apex medical commission, which had decided that FMGs without clinical training will undergo MBBS internship for two years instead of one. Last year, the Supreme Court had directed NMC for formulating policy for FMGs who have completed their medical education abroad but were unable to fulfill the requirement of practical training in their parent institutes outside of India due to COVID-19 pandemic or war situation.
Consequently, NMC had informed the Apex Court that final year medical students who returned to India due to COVID and Russia-Ukraine war and got degrees will be permitted for the FMGE exam.
In an affidavit on June 23, NMC had said upon qualifying the Foreign Medical Graduate (FMG) exam, such foreign medical graduates will be required to undergo a Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship (CRMI) for two years instead of the existing one year norm. The internship period has been doubled to make up for the clinical training which could not be physically attended by the foreign medical graduates during their course in the institutes abroad and to familiarise them with the practice of medicine under Indian conditions, the NMC affidavit had clarified.
However, the FMGS had been opposing the decision of NMC and recently they approached the Supreme Court challenging the NMC order. As per the latest media report by Live Law, the counsel for the petitioner students, Advocate Shivam Singh informed top court bench that the NMC ruling was made to retrospectively even such foreign medical students who had already received their provisional or permanent registration certificates.
As a result of the NMC circular, the registration of such doctors, who had already treated patients for several months, now had become cancelled and the State Medical Councils had revoked the certificates.
It has been contended by the petitioners that the notice dated July 28, 2022 was contrary to the principles of equity and fair play, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations. Further, it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21, argued the plea.
Urging the court to suspend the disqualification notice of such petitioners, already holding permanent registration certificates, Advocate Singh contended, “The petitioners are not shying away from an opportunity to gain more experience. But they are in a situation where the court has directed the centre and the commission to devise a workable solution for the junior batch that has completed three semesters online, whereas the petitioners have had only one remote semester. That too, at a time when the pandemic was waging – between January and May 2020. After that, the petitioners have also qualified the Foreign Medical Graduates Examination and secured their provisional medical registration.”
However, the bench was disinclined for granting any such interim relief immediately. Asking the petitioners to wait till the next hearing, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Gavai observed, “The petitioners can wait for nine days. If we deem fit, we will set aside the disqualification then.”
“Issue notice returnable on January 25. The petitioners have also been granted the liberty to serve the standing counsel for the first respondent and the central agency for the other respondent,” he further pronounced on behalf of the top court bench.
Meanwhile, while commenting on the matter, Advocate Singh told Live Law, “The petition challenges the National Medical Commission’s powers to retrospectively impose conditions and even deregister doctors. In case the impugned circular is allowed to operate, then it introduces uncertainty in the lives of doctors who have already studied for several years. Additionally, it is a classic case of changing the rules of the game after the game has started.”
