The Refusal Of Registration To Clinic upholds by Karnataka High Court.

Post author:Amit Ghodke
Post published:January 26, 2024
Post category:Judgements / Blog

The Refusal Of Registration To Clinic.

The Refusal Of Registration To Clinic upholds by Karnataka High Court.

Title: Dr. Annaiah. N. vs State of Karnataka and others.

Court: Karnataka High Court

Case No. : Writ Petition No. 23267 of 2023 (GM-RES)

Decided on: 20^th December, 2023

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna.

Introduction:

In a recent legal development, the Karnataka High Court, under the purview of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, delivered a significant judgment on December 20, 2023, in the case of Dr. Annaiah. N. versus the State of Karnataka and others. The case revolved around the petitioner’s plea to quash an endorsement by the District Health & Family Welfare Officer, also the Member Secretary of the Committee of Registration under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007. The endorsement had denied registration to Dr. Annaiah. N.’s Sangeetha Clinic, citing concerns about the petitioner’s qualifications. The petitioner, a self-proclaimed medical practitioner with diverse medical training, argued that he was entitled to practice various forms of medicine based on his certifications, including a CMS-ED certificate from the Central Paramedical Education Board, Mumbai, and paramedical training in Delhi. However, the rejection of his application for clinic registration, on September 25, 2023, prompted him to file a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court.This legal saga brings forth essential questions regarding the eligibility criteria for registration as a medical practitioner under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. The court’s analysis focused on the petitioner’s qualifications, particularly the Diploma in Community Medical Services with Essential Drugs, and whether they met the criteria defined by Section 2(k) of the Act.In this article, we delve into the key arguments presented by both parties, the court’s meticulous analysis of the petitioner’s qualifications, and the ultimate decision to uphold the endorsement rejecting the registration of Dr. Annaiah. N.’s Sangeetha Clinic. This case carries broader implications for the regulation of private medical establishments and the qualifications required for individuals to be recognized as registered medical practitioners under relevant legislation.

Facts:

In this case, where the petitioner claims to be a medical practitioner practicing various forms of medicine. The petitioner claimed that he has completed a community medical service course – C.M.S. course and has obtained CMS-ED certificate from the Central Paramedical Education Board, Mumbai. He also claimed that he has taken training in paramedical course in Delhi. On the strength of the certificate, he begins a clinic in the name of Sangeetha Clinic at Mini Ibrahim Road, KGF, Bangarpet Taluk, and claims to have been practising for several years.

As per the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007, a medical practitioner who wants to set up a private medical establishment must apply under the Act, and once registration is approved, he would be entitled to practice. The petitioner filed an application for the same, but it was rejected on 25-09-2023 on the ground that the qualification of the petitioner does not permit registration under the Act. Aggrieved by the endorsement, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition before the High Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner: The learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to practice medicine with his qualification. He also contended that the Act does not differentiate between medical practitioners but does define only medicine and not any form of medicine, and as such private medical establishments can function.

Arguments by Respondent: The learned government advocate representing the respondent vehemently refutes the submissions to contend that these doctors are practicing allopathy without any qualification to practice. The advocate also contended that endorsement was issued, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to registration of practice under the Act.

Issue:

Whether the endorsement issued by the 3^rd respondent/ District Health & Family Welfare Officer and Member Secretary of the Committee of Registration under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007, declining to issue a registration certificate to the petitioner for his Sangeetha Clinic, can be quashed?

Court Analysis and Decision:

The court observed that the petitioner had Diploma in Community Medical Services with Essential Drugs. This is a diploma conferred by the Indian Council of Medico Technical and Health Care, a society registered under the Societies Registration Adhiniyam, Kanpur. The qualification possessed by the petitioner does not make him a ‘Private Medical Practitioner’ as per Section 2(k) of the Act. The court found no fault with the endorsement issued to the petitioner rejecting his application for registration under the Act. The endorsement also noticed 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. The court said “Time has come to pull the curtain down on such people who are practicing medicine without qualification and hoodwinking poor people in rural areas.”

The court found no merit and rejected the petition.