Dead doctor's signature on Pathology reports: Bombay HC takes cognizance, seeks govt's response
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has recently taken cognisance of an instance where pathology reports were found to be signed by a doctor who had died months ago.
It was one of the several instances that were cited before the High Court by Dr Rajeev Joshi, founder-member of the Medico-Legal Society of India, during the hearing of a criminal public interest litigation by a social worker based in Yavatmal against the illegal pathology laboratories operating across the State of Maharashtra.
Dr. Joshi had filed an intervention application in the matter, and a division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas on Monday allowed the same and also directed the State Government to respond to his suggestions to deal with the issue, the Times of India has reported.
Also Read: Investigation launched over use of deceased doctor's signature on Lab reports
Background:
Filing the PIL, the petitioner alleged that thousands of laboratories across Maharashtra are being operated by technicians holding DMLT or CMLT qualifications as opposed to functioning under the supervision of qualified medical professionals, including MBBS doctors or those holding an MD degree in pathology, microbiology or biochemistry. The petitioner expressed concern that inaccurate or unreliable diagnostic reports could directly influence treatment decisions and potentially endanger the lives of patients.
Concerned over the issue, the Nagpur bench of the High Court recently asked the Maharashtra Government to clarify the regulatory framework and enforcement mechanisms to address illegal pathology laboratories. The HC Division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas asked the State Government to explain the rules and procedure to identify laboratories operating in violation of prescribed norms, along with the action that can be taken against them, in a detailed affidavit within a week.
The High Court issued this direction as during the hearing of the matter recently, the State Government could not provide satisfactory details regarding the existing regulatory mechanism and enforcement against such laboratories. Expressing displeasure over this, the bench issued directions to the Government to obtain necessary information from the concerned authorities and place a comprehensive affidavit on record.
HC takes note of reports containing signature of dead doctor:
In his intervention application, Dr Joshi submitted several news reports and relevant documents before the Court. One of these reports concerned the instance where pathology reports carried the signatures of a doctor who had passed away months ago. Medical Dialogues had also reported on this matter.
The issue concerned a Pune-based pathologist, who passed away on November 20, 2025. Despite this, his signatures allegedly continued to appear on laboratory reports issued until January 2026. The issue surfaced when patients submitted these reports while filing health insurance claims. During verification, the insurance company noticed discrepancies and alerted the Maharashtra Association of Practising Pathologists and Microbiologists (MAPPM).
A preliminary review conducted by the association revealed that reports bearing the deceased doctor's signature had been issued by laboratories and private hospitals across several locations, including Bhosari, Swargate, Narhe, Daund, and Ahilyanagar, as well as Shevgaon and Shrigonda. The association’s president, Dr Sandeep Yadav, had written to Pune district collector Jitendra Dudi and the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC), seeking a comprehensive probe and strict action against those responsible.
Apart from this, Dr Joshi referred to another instance where a 52-year-old qualified pathologist filed an FIR against 4 persons who were using his name, signature and stamp without his knowledge. He also pointed out that the Maharashtra Association of Practising Pathologists and Microbiologists had requested the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to take action against illegal laboratories. The association had reportedly claimed that more than 8000 laboratories were operating illegally in the State, cheating lakhs of citizens. In 2024, the association had also asked the Maharashtra Medical Council to take action on this.
He also relied on the order issued by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission in 2018, when the Commission highlighted how the laboratories run by DMLT persons were playing with the lives of innocent people and looting enormous amounts of money.
"State govt has machinery and mechanism through Bogus doctor committees to take action against persons running laboratories and issuing reports without countersignature by or in absence medical Council registered Pathologist," submitted Dr Joshi.
He urged the court to comply with the recommendations given by the Human Rights Commission, stop and close laboratories run by persons having DMLT or equivalent qualifications and where test reports are issued without countersignature by a state medical council-registered pathologist, direct all anti-quackery committees to conduct an audit of pathology laboratories to identify such labs, and direct the State Govt to take action against persons running such laboratories.
Dr. Joshi also questioned whether the proposed Maharashtra Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2026, would adequately address the concerns raised in the Public Interest Litigation. After being introduced in both the Houses of the State legislature, the Bill was referred to a 21-member committee for examination.
Directions by High Court:
TOI has reported that after taking note of these submissions, the HC bench directed the original petitioner, who filed the PIL, to amend the petition and add Medico Legal Society of India as a respondent. Further, the bench also allowed the Association of Clinical Laboratory Analysts and Practitioners to intervene in the matter.
Further, the HC bench issued directions to the Government to file an affidavit responding to the suggestions filed by Dr Joshi in his intervention application. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 15.
