The writ petition of a medical practitioner was quashed and his clinic was seized on the grounds of noncompliance with the regulations of the Medical Endorsement Act.
Title: Sri. DR. Annaiah. N v State of Karnataka and ors.
Citation: WP No. 23267 of 2023
Decided: 20.10.2023
Corum: Justice M. Naga Prasanna
Introduction
The Karnataka high court quashed the writ petition filed by the petitioner Sri Annaiah who had approached the court through article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to set aside an order against him which rejected his application necessary for setting up private medical practise according to the private Medical Establishment act 2007. Justice NagaPrasanna after while delivering his judgment considering various precedents similar in nature and clear review of private medical establishment act 2007.
Brief facts of the case
The petitioner Sri Annaiah is a medical practitioner who insists to have completed his community medical service course (CMS-ED) and obtained a Certificate from the Central Paramedical Education Board, Mumbai as prescribed by the World Health Organization guidelines. Through these accreditations, the petitioner established a clinic named “Sangeetha Clinic” in Bangalore and asserted to have been practicing for years.
The Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007, passed by the Karnataka government, went into force in 2008. Anyone planning to open a private medical practice must apply for registration under this Act. The online application submitted by the petitioner to get this approval was rejected on the ground that the petitioner’s qualification was insufficient to meet the requirements of this act.
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the Act’s provisions, particularly the definition of a “Medical Practitioner” as per Section 2(k), which specifies qualifications for practicing different systems of medicine. The petitioner argued that the Act should not differentiate between medical practitioners and that there are precedents where directions were issued for considering cases of practitioners not in the mainstream of medicine.
In contradiction the government argued that the petitioner was practising allopathy without any necessary qualifications in relation to the endorsement rejecting the application.
Courts observation and analysis
The High Court of Karnataka quashed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner did not have necessary requirements to practise medicine privately and is not eligible to obtain the required government approval needed for setting up of the practise.
In the light of the aforesaid facts the court also held that there was no fault on the mandate of the statute with the endorsement issued to the petitioner rejecting his application for registering under this act.
The endorsement also notices that the clinic of the petitioner would be seized and the seizure would be axiomatic, as it is a consequence of non-registration of the clinic by a doctor who has no qualification.
“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.”
Written by – Namitha Ramesh