Doctor Is Not In A Position To Tell Which Regulatory Body He Is Governed Under: Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Registration Certificate
The Karnataka High Court observed that the Appellant could not be granted a registration certification as he was unable to specify the regulatory body which would govern his specialization.
The Court dismissed the Appeal, challenging the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court had dismissed the Petition challenging the Endorsement whereby his Application for registration under Section 5 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (Act) was rejected. The Court reiterated that a regulatory body is essential to oversee and regulate medical professionals in order to prevent any negative impact on public health.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit noted, “Professionals in general and the Medical Practitioners in particular do aspire to an ideal defining a standard of good conduct, virtuous character and a commitment to excel beyond the norm of morality ordinarily governing relations among ordinary persons. It needs no research to know the possible ill-consequences on public health, should persons who profess medical avocation be not disciplined by a Regulatory Body, whatever be its nomenclature”.
Advocate Govindaraju K. appeared for the Appellant, and Additional General Advocate Niloufer Akbar appeared for the Respondent.
The Appellant approached the Court by way of an Intra-Court Writ Appeal challenging the order of the Trial Court, wherein his Writ Petition was dismissed. The Appellant had filed a Petition before the Trial Court challenging the Endorsement whereby his Application for registration under Section 5 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (Act) was rejected.
The Court noted that the Appellant was unable to provide an answer as to which regulatory body oversees his medical profession. The Court observed that the Medical Council of India regulates medical practitioners in the Allopathy branch of science. In contrast, the practitioners of AYUSH, such as Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy, have other regulatory bodies. The Court noted that protecting the public's health, safety, and well-being is crucial, along with maintaining confidence in the medical profession and proper professional standards.
The Bench noted, “The protection of the Public includes not only matters relating to the health, safety and wellbeing of the public but also the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession and the maintenance of proper professional standards & conduct”.
Furthermore, the Court referred to the case of PSA For Health And Social Care v Health And Care Professions Council [2021 4 WLR 31] and reiterated that professionals, especially medical practitioners, seek to uphold high standards of conduct and character beyond ordinary morality.
“Professionals in general and the Medical Practitioners in particular do aspire to an ideal defining a standard of good conduct, virtuous character and a commitment to excel beyond the norm of morality ordinarily governing relations among ordinary persons”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Dr. Mohan Bhatta M R v State of Karnataka