The Delhi High Court recently held that the removal of the name of the doctor, issuing an untrue, misleading, or improper certificate without examining the patient from the Medical Council (MCI) Roll is not the only penalty that can be imposed.
The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the issuance of a warning to two doctors who issued a certificate without seeing the patient.
The petitioner, Dr Neena Raizada, had challenged the order of August 13 passed by the Medical Council of India issuing a warning to Dr Ravi Kumar and Dr Arti Lalchandani not to issue any opinion letters without seeing the patients.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the contention of the petitioner that the only penalty that can be imposed on a doctor who gives a certificate that is untrue, misleading, or improper is the removal of the name of the doctor from the rolls of the register of the Medical Council cannot be accepted.
“Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, only postulates that a doctor who gives an untrue, misleading, or improper certificate can be removed from the rolls of the register of the Medical Council,” Justice Prasad observed.
“However, it does not mean that the only punishment that can be given to such a doctor is the removal of the name from the rolls of the register of the Medical Council,” Justice Prasad said in the order passed on October 19.
The bench clarified that Regulation 8.2 gives power to the Medical Council to impose any punishment as is deemed necessary, which can also include the removal of the name of the doctor from the rolls of the register of the Medical Council permanently or for a specified period.
The petitioner is the complainant. She had approached the UP State Medical Council, alleging misconduct on the part of Dr Arti Lalchandani and Dr Ravi Kumar, for issuing a certificate dated July 9, 2014.
The complainant, who herself is a doctor, alleged that Dr Arti Lalchandani and Dr Ravi Kumar issued the certificate even without examining her.
The UP State Medical Council warned the doctors not to issue certificates or opinions without examining the patients.
The said decision was challenged by the complainant before the Medical Council of India.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, does not postulate any punishment by way of warning; rather, the only punishment that is stipulated under the Regulations is the removal of the doctor from the rolls of the Medical Council.
On the other hand, Counsel for the National Medical Commission (NMC) submitted that under Regulation 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, the Medical Council has the power to award any punishment as deemed necessary and it also has the power to award the punishment of removal of names from the rolls.
It was also stated that if a certificate given by a medical practitioner is untrue, misleading or improper, he is liable to have his name removed from the rolls.
The high court noted that Regulation 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, gives power to the Medical Council to award punishment in cases of misconduct. (ANI)
