Govt doctors should not indulge in private practice: SC refuses to interfere with MLN medical college inquiry
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: Observing that the government doctors should not indulge in private practice, the Supreme Court on June 22 declined to interfere with an Allahabad High Court order directing a high-level inquiry into the allegations that the government doctors associated with Moti Lal Nehru Medical College were engaging in private practice despite a prohibition and operating a parallel healthcare system outside the government hospital.
While considering an SLP filed in this regard by an Associate Professor in the Surgery Department of the medical college, the top court bench comprising Justices B.V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi allowed withdrawal of the appeal after expressing its disinclination to interfere with the High Court's order.
Background:
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that last month, the Allahabad High Court issued stringent directions to the Uttar Pradesh government regarding the functioning of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College and its affiliated Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, expressing serious concern over allegations that government doctors are engaged in private practice and operating what the court described as a “parallel medical industry” in Prayagraj.
The HC bench had directed a probe into the matter, stating, “Let the matter be placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of UP, Lucknow, who shall take appropriate action against all these defaulting persons and set up a high-level enquiry against all the doctors who are indulging in private practice in the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College.”
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal had directed the state authorities to initiate a high-level inquiry into allegations against doctors reportedly involved in private practice at the medical college.
The matter gained attention after the court was informed about a recently registered First Information Report (FIR) against an associate professor of the college and his wife. As per the details presented before the court, the doctor is allegedly operating a private nursing home.
During the hearing, the court observed that the scarcity of funds or amenities provided by the government at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College and the attached Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital are not the reason behind its deteriorated condition, but “it is the medical fraternity who is failing the object of the Government.”
“The Professors, Associate Professors, and Lecturers are practicing in private nursing homes and are running a parallel medical industry in the city of Prayagraj. These doctors are performing surgery and keeping the patients in a private setup, who are transferred from the Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital,” the Allahabad High Court noted in its order dated May 4.
Further, the HC bench had noted that according to a previous order, the district magistrate, Prayagraj, was supposed to look into the allegations of private practice by doctors serving as professors, associate professors, and lecturers at the medical college, but there has been no further progress on the matter, and no report has been filed.
Proceedings before the Supreme Court:
Filing the SLP before the Apex Court, Senior Advocate Harshvir Pratap Singh, appearing for the Associate Professor in the Surgery Department of the medical college, argued that he was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court. However, the Single Judge, while hearing a writ petition, had relied on an FIR arising out of a personal dispute involving him.
However, Justice Nagarathna observed that the High Court bench was dealing with a larger public issue. She observed, "The cause is very good. Because government doctors should not do and you are also a doctor."
As per the latest media report by Live Law, further observing that the proceedings were not directed personally against the concerned doctor, but concerned allegations of private practice by government doctors, Justice Nagarathna noted, "There is nothing personal against you. It is for all doctors who are indulging in private practice."
As the Apex Court repeatedly indicated that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's directions, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the High Court.
However, the Apex Court bench declined to grant any specific liberty and observed that the petitioner could either accept a dismissal order or withdraw the petition. Ultimately, the SLP was withdrawn.
