Appointment of Medical Superintendent additionally as the Head of Department violates Regulation 3.7 of National Medical Commission: Karnataka High Court
Case title: Dr. Sridhara S Vs The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors
Case no.: Writ Petition No.4050 OF 2024
Decision on: March 13rd, 2024
Quoram: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum
Facts of the case
The issue in this case pertains to assignment of dual roles, i.e. the combination of position of Medical Superintendent and Head of Department, ENT to the Respondent 3 (Res 3) by the Respondent 1 (Res 1).
The Res 1 through an Official Memorandum appointed Res 3 as in-charge Head of Department of ENT, Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences. The petitioner, Dr. Sridhara’s grievance was that Dr. T.D. Thimmappa (Res 3) who was already holding the post of Medical Superintendent couldn’t occupy the position of Head of Department in terms of 3.7 Regulation of National Medical Commission (NMC). He opined that such an appointment would raise significant concerns regarding potential conflict of interest, compromised patient care and diminished educational opportunities for students.
A writ petition was filed under Articles 226 & 227 to quash the Official Memorandum issued by the Director of the institution as being violative of the NMC norms.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court on perusal of the Regulation 3.7 of National Medical Commission (NMC) noted that the Medical Superintendent cannot be Head of Department of a clinical department. The very purpose of the norms laying an embargo against the dual roles is to avoid conflict of interest. It quoted the responsibilities of the Medical Superintendent and Head of Department of a clinical department and highlighted the differences in their roles.
It stated that the role of Medical Superintendent in the Hospital involved administrative duties such as managing budgets, staffing, facilities and ensuring compliance with regulations and policies and for the smooth operation of the Hospital as a whole focusing on aspects like infrastructure, finance and overall organisational efficiency.
Whereas, the Head of the Department in the Clinical Departments such as Surgery, Medicine, Pediatric, ENT, is responsible for overseeing the medical and clinical aspects of that specific department. This includes supervising medical staff, ensuring quality patient care, setting departmental policies and participating in clinical decision-making.
The Court, thus noted that the Medical Superintendent’s primary focus is on administrative task while HOD focuses on clinical matters within their specific department and hence, appointing Res 3 as both an Administrator and Head of Clinical Department could compromise the impartiality and effectiveness of decision-making in both the areas.
The court also observed that this dual role could potentially affect students in various ways. If HOD is also responsible for administrative duties as a Medical Superintendent, it may detract from his ability to focus on educational responsibilities within the Department.
It rejected the contention of the institution that the position of Medical Superintendent is not sanctioned and thus it was justified to allow the Medical Superintendent to hold the post of HOD contrary to 3.7 Regulations of NMC and stated that if the position of Medical Superintendent is not officially sanctioned, it does not automatically grant permission for the Medical Superintendent to hold an additional charge of HOD.
In the light of the above findings, the Karnataka High Court held that the appointment of respondent No.3 who is already holding the post of Medical Superintendent as HOD of ENT is null and void as it violates Regulation 3.7 of NMC Regulations. It, therefore, directed the Institute rectify this violation immediately by appointing a qualified individual with requisite expertise and experience as the Head of the Department of ENT. Accordingly, it quashed the memorandum and allowed the plea.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K