Tamil Nadu Medical Council suspends 2 doctors
Chennai: Taking action against two doctors for issuing fake life certificates to dead persons, the Tamil Nadu Medical Council has suspended them.
While the name of one doctor has been removed from the Medical Register for a term of 3 months, the other doctor has been suspended for two years.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported about these two cases, in which the Tamil Nadu Medical Council had issued notices to the doctors for issuing fake "life certificates" to dead people. One of the two doctors was serving as an Assistant Surgeon with the Royapettah Government Hospital, Chennai, and now is employed as an Assistant Professor at Government Medical College Hospital, Vellore, whereas the other doctor runs a private clinic in Hosur.
In the case of the Assistant Surgeon, back on January 10, 2018, she had issued the life certificate of a man who had committed suicide in July 2015. The issue came to light when the wife of the dead person lodged a complaint with the medical council of Tamil Nadu that the property in his name was sold by his relatives two days after the Government doctor issued a "life certificate" for her husband. While his wife was the legal heir, the property was sold by his relatives using the "fake" certificate.
In another incident, a person hailing from Bangalore filed a complaint with the medical council of Tamil Nadu that a doctor who owns a private clinic in Hosur, conspired with one person and issued "life certificates" to two women, a year after the Bruthat Bengaluru Mahanagare Palike (BBMP) issued their death certificates.
While one of those two women passed away on October 16, 2019, her mother died on July 18, 2020. However, according to the complainant, the accused doctor allegedly issued their "life certificates" on September 7, 2020. The complainant, in the petition, said that the certificates were used for the registration of documents based on a power of attorney.
Replying to the notice, the Assistant Professor replied that her father-in-law was not keeping in good health during 2018 and one day when she was about to go to Hospital to perform her duty, he called her and said that he was not keeping good health and may collapse at any time and for this he wanted to register the properties belonging to the deceased person concerned in the case. The doctor further claimed that her father-in-law had informed her that he had paid the entire sale consideration to them and they had given possession of the properties to him. He had also allegedly told the doctor that those people were alive.
Believing the words of her father-in-law, the doctor had issued the live certificates for three persons including the deceased person in question. The doctor claimed herself to be a victim of the circumstances as she believed the words of her father-in-law.
Noting that the doctor has indirectly accepted the charges and offered unconditional apology, the Disciplinary Committee opined that she may remain suspended till the completion of the criminal case.
During the special business meeting on 5th February, 2022, the Council considered the case carefully and noted that the accusation of issuing fake life certificate as not disputed by the doctor.
At this outset, the council observed, "She says that, her father-in-law requested her to issue a live certificate and when enquired as to whether those persons are alive, he said that those persons are fine. Therefore believing his words, to honour him, she issued the Certificate. Thus, it is patently clear that on the date of issue of live certificate viz. 10.01.2018, Dr. **** has not seen the person to whom live certificate is issued. Actually the complainant's husband Mr. *** has expired on 02.07.2015."
Referring to the fact that medical certificates are legal documents and the statements certified by the Registered Medical Practitioners should be based on clear and relevant evidence, the council further noted that the doctors registered with TNMC are required to "comply with Code of Medical Ethics (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2003. According to the Regulation 7.7 of the code, Doctors are required to issue medical certificates on the truth of the contents."
The council also noted that "Both the legal and medical professions have a certain core set of values, one of which is conducting himself or herself with honesty. The acts of Dr. ***, particularly issuing a live certificate to a person, who is known to the family of her and who has died some 4 and half years ago and thereby, her family grabbing the landed property of the deceased amounting to crores of Rupees through the misconduct, were fairly shocking. No doubt, dishonesty reveals a defect of character rendering the errant solicitor unsuitable for the profession, or undermines the administration of justice."
Holding the doctor guilty of charges, the council opined, "Whoever issues or signs any certificate knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be liable to be punished. Public interest considerations are paramount and other considerations do not carry as much weight. Dr. *** misconduct comprising of a breach of medical ethics is very serious n nature and her submissions justifying the misconduct are wholly misconceived and must be rejected."
Barring the doctor from medical practice for two years, the Council further held, "It was not a negligent mistake; it reflected a deliberate, unjustified and unethical approach to the noble profession and considering the above factors in totality, it is ordered that, the name of Dr. ***, M.D, be removed from the Medical Register of Tamil Nadu Medical Council, for two years."
"While one might feel sorry for the Doctor for the severe consequences arising from her misconduct, it is important not to lose sight of the need to preserve the reputation of Medical Profession and to prevent the erosion of Public Confidence in the trustworthiness of Doctors," further read the Council order.
In the other case concerning the private practitioner, the doctor responded to the Council's notice and replied that "As those persons were wearing masks and standing at about 6 feet behind a plastic sheet during rush hours and in spite of his sincere verification with Aadhar Card he could not find any difference with the facial and physical identities and therefore he issued the certificates."
Accepting the charges before the Disciplinary Committee, the doctor submitted that due to COVID, proper verification of the individuals was not possible.
However, the committee opined that if the doctor couldn't verify the persons properly due to COVID, he ought to have declined to issue live certificates.
During the special business meeting, the Council found the explanations of the doctor to be unsatisfactory and noted, "Medical Certificates legal documents and the statements certified by the Registered Medical Practitioners should be based on clear and relevant evidence. Especially, for issuing Life Certificate through scrutiny of the concerned person with reference to the credentials produced is needed. Medical Practitioners should satisfy themselves with the identity of the person and generally these "LIFE CERTIFICATES" should not be issued to unknown persons."
Referring to the TNMC Regulations, the council noted, "The act committed by Dr. ***, particularly issuing a live certificate to person and attesting his photograph, who has died earlier is fairly shocking. No doubt, such grave misconducts are unsuitable for the profession, or undermine the administration of justice. Whoever issues or signs any certificate, which is false in any material point, shall be liable to be punished in Public interest considerations. Dr. *** misconduct comprising of a breach of medical ethics is very serious in nature and his submissions justifying the misconduct, citing COVID regulations are wholly misconceived and must be rejected."
Noting that issuing live certificate in respect of those who are dead is a serious offence, the council found the doctor guilty of disciplinary charge. "Gross misconduct as above will bring the profession into ridicule and seriously undermine public trust in the Profession. Therefore, such professional lapses must be policed and deterred. Taking into account the matters discussed above, the Council orders that the name of the Respondent, Dr. *** be removed from the Medical Register, for a term of 3 months (Three months)."
Speaking to Medical Dialogues, Dr. K Senthil, president of TNMC said, "There is a difference between these two cases and the quantum of punishment also differs. One of the major differences is that in one case, using the fake certificate, a property had been registered in the name of the doctor's father-in-law."
