Maha MLA demands action over Ghost signatures in lab reports
Mumbai: The practice of “ghost pathologists” and the unauthorised signing of pathology reports was recently raised in the Maharashtra State Assembly. Concerns were expressed that laboratory technicians and other staff were allegedly signing pathology reports instead of qualified pathologists, raising serious questions about the credibility of diagnostic testing and patient safety.
During the Assembly session, Shiv Sena MLA Manisha Kayande highlighted the alleged malpractice, stating that pathology reports are being issued under questionable circumstances in several laboratories. She pointed out that only an MD in Pathology is authorised to sign pathology reports, but in many cases, laboratory technicians are reportedly signing them. She urged the state government to initiate action against such individuals under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.
According to a report by The Free Press Journal, concerns over the issue were earlier raised by the Maharashtra Association of Practicing Pathologists and Microbiologists (MAPPM). The association alleged that some diagnostic laboratories in the state are operating under the names of pathologists who are no longer alive, while in other instances, the names of pathologists are being used without mentioning their registration numbers.
Kayande also pointed out that the rapid expansion of pathology laboratories across both urban and rural areas has brought the matter into sharper focus. “Some laboratories are allegedly issuing test reports without the supervision of trained pathologists or recognised medical practitioners. In certain instances, lab technicians or other staff members are digitally signing reports on behalf of pathologists. This has severely eroded public trust in diagnostic testing, with serious concerns emerging over the credibility of reports issued by several laboratories,” she said.
She further sought clarification from the government on whether similar legal action could be taken against such individuals under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, as is done in cases involving bogus doctors.
Responding to the concerns, Maharashtra Health Minister Prakash Abitkar said that there is a lack of clarity on certain aspects of the issue. However, he assured the Assembly that the government would soon organise a meeting with all stakeholders to examine the matter and explore the possibility of introducing appropriate legislation.
Meanwhile, Dr Sandip Yadav, president of MAPPM, highlighted that the existing law already provides sufficient provisions to act against bogus pathologists.
“FIRs have been registered, and action has been taken under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. There is no ambiguity. It appears that the government has been delaying the issue for the past two decades, possibly to protect these technicians for minor benefits,” said Dr Yadav.
