ABOUT US
INTRODUCTION
Integrated Institute for Health Training was established with the objective to extend and furnish education and training in Primary Health Care and related components to the vast magnitude of our rural population in general and to the Rural Health Practitioners in particular for the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health of the people of India as one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition envisaged in the constitution of World Health Organization (WHO).
The Alma Ata declaration out lined that the primary health care is based on the training and scientific orientation provided to health care workers including physicians, nurses, midwives, community health workers, paramedical & auxiliary health personnel and traditional medical practitioners.
For achieving the main object, the Institute has established scientific community health workers, paramedical & auxiliary health personnel and education in various states of India. The Institute has also various others scheme to set up paramedical center and units for the self-employment of the educated unemployed with great object. The Institute has set up and established paramedical center, which has devoted to the betterment and development of the medical science.
Oecumenical of Alternative Medical Science, Legacy Reg. No. S/74015 and new Reg. No. SO074015.
(Council of Alternative Medical Science approved by Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata. Civil Order No. 13577 (W) of 1996).
Oecumenical of Alternative Medical Science is a body registered by the Government of West Bengal under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act. And it is carrying on its activities on the basis of the aims and objects of the said association. The said Institution affiliated with the Oecumenical of Alternative Medical Science.
AIMS & OBJECTS
The above aims & objects are legal and cannot be said to be public policy; order by Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata. Matter No. 546 of 1988, date. 7th May 1990.
Hon’ble High Court order:
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
The 9th October, 1996.
Present:
The Hon’ble Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, one of the Judges of this court.
Civil order No. 13577 (W) of 1996, issued by this court.
In the matter of an application Article 226 of the constitution of India.
And in the matter of an application for a writ in the nature of Mandamus and / or in the nature of certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ or writs;
And in the matter of issue of order or orders and or direction or directions;
And in the matter of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India.
And in the matter of Impugned action and / or non-action o the part of the Habra police station in connection with the disturbance in lawful function of the petitioner’s Institution;
And in the matter of : 1. Mihir Chandra Roy, Secretary Oecumenical of Alternative Medical Science of Village – Manikhira, P.O. Colony Ramchandrapur, P.S. – Gaighata, District – 24 Parganas (North).
2. The Medical College of Alternative Medical Science, having its Registered office at Rail Bridge, P.O. – Gobardanga, District – 24 Parganas (N). …. Petitioners.
- Versus –
1. The State of West Bengal, service through the Secretary Department of Health, Govt. of West Bengal, Writer’s Building Calcutta – 700001.
2. The Registrar of Registration of Societies and Firms , Toddy Mansion, Calcutta – 700001.
The Officer-in-charge, Habra Police station, P.S. – Habra, Dist. 24 Parganas North.
… Respondents.
For Petitioner : None.
This Writ application is disposed of by directing the Registrar of Registration of Societies and Firms, the respondent no. 2 to deal with and dispose of the petitioner’s application, dated April 22, 1996 for permission of some alterations of the Memorandum of Association as in annexure – D to the petition within two months from the date of communication of this order.
There will be no order as to costs.
The 9.10.1996. B.P. Banerjee
Typed by S.B.
Exam by:
Read by:
Right of Practitioner
system they have right to pursue this system and can prescribe the same to the people. In this system to get cure by controlling diet, sense, breathing, and after making research of plant.
2. The rights of our practitioners under article 19(1) G, constitution of India have been established in a writ proceeding in the court of law.
3. The practitioner, who shall be enrolled in the register or registers of the Society shall be entitled to practice as a qualified physician without any restriction and shall be entitled to certify the sickness of a patient (as per rule 13 (a) of the Society Regd. by Govt.
4. Persons qualified or those having more than five years experience in any branch of Alternative Medicines (as per rule 12 A of the Society) will be registered by the Oecumenical of Alternative Medical Science. The Registered persons will be declared as qualified persons to practice in any branch of Alternative Systems of Medicines as provided by the rules and regulations of the Society and shall not be convicted or punished by any Govt. in India in doing so, if he is proved to be a man of good & moral conduct and honest in discharging his duties. (Rule 13 (b) of the Society, Regd. by Govt.)
ALLOPATHY COURSE
CMS is known as Community Medical Services. It is for primary health care by general Allopathic medicines, which are recommended by the world health Organization for primary health care. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given an order that CMS Diploma holder can give the treatment in all disease including Infection disease.
Recommended Medicine (W.H.O)
LIST OF GENERAL ALLOPATHIC MEDICINES (RECOMMENDED BY W.H.O.
(WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION) FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE FOR CMS DIPLOMA HOLDER The List Is Based On The Book Essential Drugs For Primary Health Care Published By W.H.O. Geneva, Switzerland And The Book Written By Spanish Dr. David Warner Published By VOLUNTARY HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA , SWASTHYA , BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
The List had been Send To The Health Ministry. The Govt. of India, By ICM&HC (The Moved Iosms University ) Vide No (SPEU-563552573 IN) According To The Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment, CMS Diploma holder can provide his Basic Medical Services to the distressed humanity by the medicine which are recommended by WHO For Primary Health Care.
Legal Status
The CMS Diploma is valid all over India for Practice by Harmless General Allopathic Medicines for Primary Health Care Practice. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
C.M.S. (Community Medical Science & Essential Drugs) – Recommended by W.H.O.
The candidate’s who have passed H.S. or equivalent examination eligible for the admission to C.M.S. course of 2 years, the course is commencing from July of every year.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 152 of 1994
PETITIONER:
Subhasis Bakshi & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
West Bengal Medical Council & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2003
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
"Thou shall not prescribe, but treat". Does this commandment stand the test of legal scrutiny? This is the stark and simple question to be decided in this case.
The long-winded facts of this case read as follows:
That about 337 persons, including the appellants had completed the diploma course of Community Medical Service in duly recognized institutions in
the State of West Bengal and were posted in different parts of the State by the Government of West Bengal. On October 15, 1980 vide Notification No. Health/MA/7076/5M-5/80 the Government of West Bengal made an amendment in the Statute of the State Medical Faculty by introducing Article 6F under Part B,
which reads verbatim as under:
"6F: Students who will undergo and complete the requisite course of studies in Medicine/Medical Science (as defined and detailed in the Schedule to this article and hereinafter called as the said Regulations for the Diploma course in Community Medical Services) in Medical Institutions, duly recognized by the State
Medical Faculty of West Bengal, shall be admitted into examinations in the subjects laid down in the said regulations and the students passing the examinations shall be granted Diploma with the abbreviation "Dip. C.M.S", by the Governing body of the aforesaid Faculty. The Governing Body of the aforesaid Faculty shall also maintain a Register of such Diploma holders with a view to regulating, supervising and restricting their practice for the present."
The objective of the said Notification, as detailed therein, is as follows:
" I. Objectives:
i). To provide medical training to a group of personnel to man the Health Centers and Subsidiary Health Centers.
ii). Emphasis is to be given on comprehensive Health Care of the Community including promotive, preventive and curative aspects.
iii). A candidate after successfully completing the course of studies will act as a Team Leader of various categories of Field Workers.
iv). Training in curative medicines is to be imparted in such a way that after completion of training the trainees can treat common diseases among rural population including communicable diseases, malnutritional
states, snake bite, insecticidal poisoning etc. Instructions on diseases requiring sophisticated treatment not practicable in Health Centers will be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
restricted to the barest minimum. However, such candidates should learn to recognize sign and symptoms of more serious diseases requiring special treatment at referral hospitals (e.g., Sub-divisional or District Hospital) so that such patients may be sent early to these institutions.
v). The training in promotive and preventive aspect of Health Care including Family Planning and Child Care should be undertaken by actual participation in the field work under the supervision of their teachers along with the field workers.
vi). A substantial part of the training will be conducted in Health Centers where they will reside along with their teacher in each term of their course so that they are exposed to the field condition from the beginning of their course."
On 23/6/1987, the Government of West Bengal issued a Corrigendum and the Diploma that was earlier known as ’Diploma in Medicine for Community Physicians’ was rechristened as ’Diploma in Community Medical Service.’ Apprehending that the re-naming would have a detrimental effect on their rights,
the appellants filed W.P. No.7052/89 in the Calcutta High Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on the assurance given by the Government Pleader that the State was willing to award the ’Diploma in Community Medical Service’ to the successful candidates. It was also assured by
the State, in the said petition that it would provide jobs to such candidates in accordance with the stated policy of the Government. The learned Single Judge of the High Court made it clear that the Diploma Holders will not have the right to private practice and that part of the order was not challenged by the appellants at all and entry in the register is only for the right to prescribe medicines and issue certificates.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench assured that the change in the nomenclature would not affect the Appellants right. The Division Bench reiterated that "the persons holding the Diploma and employed to man the Health Centers and Subsidiary Health Centers would be competent to treat common diseases among rural population including communicable disease, malnutritional states, snake bite, insecticidal poisoning etc". The Division Bench also mentioned the stated Government policy on providing jobs to such Diploma holders. Upon this the High Court opined that in the light of the clarifications made by and on behalf of the State Medical Faculty and the State, there should be no reason for the appellants to
entertain any kind of apprehension with regard to their being able to perform functions and duties which they as are entitled to do under the Regulations as amended vide notification dated October 10, 1980. Pertaining to the registration of names in the Register of Diploma holders, the High Court stated that the
Register shall be prepared and will be maintained in accordance with and in terms of the Statute 6F and that necessary formalities in that regard will be completed on or before March 31, 1990.
This judgment of the High Court was not complied with by the State. Contempt Application was filed on September 7, 1990 in the High Court. By the time, on November 21, 1990 Director of Health Services, West Bengal vide Order No. HPH/10 ’S-3-90/1512 issued Job Description of Community Health Service Officers. While hearing the Contempt Application on November 23, 1990 the High Court accepted the assurance given by the Secretary to the Government in Department of Family Welfare in the presence of Secretary of the Medical Faculty and the State Medical Council that the Government would issue fresh instructions to the Job Description of Community Health Officers. These fresh instructions, were assured, would be issued in accordance with the earlier judgment of the Bench. On December 10, 1990 the aforementioned description
was partially modified vide Order No. HPH/10-’S-3-90/1629. By virtue of this Order, the Diploma Holders were allowed to treat common diseases among rural population as provided in the sub-clause (iv) of the objectives to the Notification dated October 15, 1980 and it was also mentioned that item No 17 in the Notice issued under No 1512 dated November 21, 1990 was treated as omitted.
Another Order No HPH/10-’S-3-90/1630 was issued on the same day which says that the Diploma Holders were "not permitted to issue Death Certificate, Sickness
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
Certificate or Medical Fitness Certificates required for Court cases" and also directed that the treatment advice and prescription made by them were to be counter signed by the BMO or the MO-in-charge. While on March 6, 1991 vide Memo No. HPH/10-’S-3/90/222 the Order No HPH/10-’S-3-90/1630 dated December 10, 1990 was cancelled. By Order dated May 7, 1991 the High Court disposed of the contempt proceeding by making the direction to the Government that they would maintain a register of the Diploma Holders in terms of the Article 6F of the original Notification. It is also clarified by the High Court in the Order that the "Registration by the State Medical Faculty will authorize the Community Health Service Officers to continue to discharge their duties as specified in the duty chart in the Health Centers/Subsidiary Health Centers as long as they are in service." Upon this high note, the first round of litigation before the Calcutta High Court was concluded.
At this juncture, by virtue of the order of the High Court, the appellants had obtained the right to treat common diseases among rural population including communicable diseases, malnutritional states, snake bites, insecticidal poisoning etc. But their grievance is that the consequential right of issuing certificates of
sickness or death, prescriptions etc. was taken away by Notification No. HPH/10- ’S-3-90/1630 dated November 21, 1990. It is also the case of the appellants that item no 17 of the said notification was cancelled. Challenging the denial of ’consequential rights to treat’ such as right to issue prescription or certificates of sickness or death, the second round litigation was initiated.
The appellants anchored their case on a Notification No. 1076-Medical dated May 17, 1915 issued by the then Financial Department, Government of Bengal. The relevant portion of the said Notification is extracted hereunder:
"In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Section 18 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 (Bengal Act, VI of 1914) and on the recommendation of the Bengal council of Medical Registration, the Governor in Council is pleased to direct that a title, certificate of qualification, Diploma or license granted by the Governing Body of the State Medical Faculty, to any person shall subject to the provisions referred to in the said Clause entitled the holder of such title, certificate of qualifications, Diploma or License to have his name entered in the Register of Registered practitioners maintained under Section 15 of the said Act." By virtue of this Notification read with Sections 15 and 18 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914, the appellants argues that they are entitled to enter their names in the Register of Registered Practitioners maintained by the Bengal Council of Medical Practitioners. Urging this Writ Petition was filed before the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court. The Petition was allowed in favour of these appellants, subject to the condition that they are not allowed to pursue Private Practice and making it clear that their only right is to prescribe medicines and issue certificates and this part of the order became final. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the Bengal Medical Council preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set-aside the decision of the learned Single Judge. There are two main reasons given by the Division Bench to vacate the Writ. They are - (1). "The sine qua non for the application and operation of Section 18 are- (a) satisfaction of the Council that any particular qualification is sufficient guarantee for the requisite knowledge or skill for efficient medical practice, (b) report to that effect by the Council to the Government, and (c) direction by the Government, on acceptance of such report, by notification in the Official Gazette. We do not think that in 1915, the Council could in any way be satisfied as to the quality or merit of a course or qualification introduced in 1980 and could report its satisfaction by some sort of divine prescience or foresight. Not do we think that the Government could by a Notification recognize or approve a course or certificate or qualification in future or in vacuo, in respect of a course or certificate which was not in existence at the
date of Notification." (2). Relying on A.K Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala, AIR
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5 1992 SC 1310 it was found that ’a person can practice in allopathic system of medicine in a state or in the country only if he possesses a recognized medical qualification’ and since the appellants doesn’t possesses the required qualification, it was held that their names could not be included in the Medical Register. Thus this appeal by special leave.
The only relief, which these appellants are seeking, is the protection of their ’consequential rights to treat’ such as issuing prescriptions or sickness or death certificates. As a matter of fact the respondents do not dispute the validity of Notification No. Health/MA/7076/5M-5/80 dated October 15, 1980. It is by
virtue of this Notification that the appellants were having the right to treat. Now the only question for consideration is whether the Appellants, who are having the right to treat, could issue prescription or sickness or death certificates?
In this context it is worthwhile to discuss Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab, (1998) 7 SCC 579. In this case the validity of Notifications issued by State Governments of Punjab and Rajasthan, under Rule 2(ee)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 whereby the Governments declaring some vaids/ hakims as persons practicing modern medicines were challenged. Upholding the validity of the Notifications and the said Rule, this Court held that, for the purpose of Drugs Act "what is required is not the qualification in modern scientific system of medicine but a declaration by a State Government that a person is practicing modern scientific system and that he is registered in a Medical Register of the State". In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand, this Court also clarifies that there could be two registers for medical practitioners i.e, Indian Medical Register and State Medical Register. As far as the State Medical Registers are concerned the concerned State Government according to the rules will determine the required qualification. While recognizing the rights of vaids or hakims to prescribe allopathic medicines, this Court also took into account of the fact that qualified
allopathic doctors were not available in rural areas and the persons like vaids / hakims are catering to the medical needs of residents in such areas. Hence the provision which allows them to practice modern medicine was found in the public interest. In this context Dr. Mukhtiar Chand holds that "It is thus possible that in any State, the law relating to registration of practitioners of modern scientific medicine may enable a person to be enrolled on the basis of the qualifications other than the ’recognized medical qualification’ which is a prerequisite only for being enrolled on the Indian Medical Register but not for registration in a State Medical Register. Even under the 1956 Act, ’recognized medical qualification’ is sufficient for that purpose. That does not mean that it is indispensably essential.
Persons holding ’recognized medical qualification’ cannot be denied registration in any State Medical Register. But the same cannot be insisted for registration in a State Medical Register. However, a person registered in a State Medical Register cannot be enrolled on the Indian Medical Register unless he possesses
’recognized medical qualification’. This follows from a combined reading of Sections 15(1), 21(1) and 23. So by virtue of such qualifications as prescribed in a State Act and on being registered in a State Medical Register, a person will be entitled to practice allopathic medicine under Section 15(2)(b) of the 1956 Act."
Based on this reasoning this Court partially overruled A.K Sabhapathy, which earlier ruled that a person could practice allopathic medicine only if he possess a recognized medical qualification. In Medical Council of India & Another v. State of Rajasthan and Anr, (1996) 7 SCC 731 (2 judges), it was observed that "It would thus be clear that the basic qualification of MBBS as a primary qualification is a precondition for a candidate for being registered in the State Medical Register maintained by the State Board". Identical view expressed in the decision in A.K Sabhapathy on the same point having been overruled, this view in Medical Council of India vs. State of Rajasthan [supra] also stands impliedly overruled. Coming back to the case in hand, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment relied upon A.K Sabhapathy to deny the appellants’ right to prescribe medicines or to issue sickness or death certificates and held that the appellants do not possess the ’recognized medical qualification’. In the light of the ruling in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand this view of the Division Bench cannot be sustained. Therefore there is no bar to register the name of the appellants in the State Medical Register.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5 Now the only issue for consideration is whether the right to issue prescription or certificates could be treated as a part of right to treat. In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand it was pointed out that "because prescribing a drug is a concomitant right to practice a system of medicine. Therefore, in a broad sense, the right to prescribe drug of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practice that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe an allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine." The appellants are validly holding the right to treat certain diseases. So their right to issue prescriptions or certificates cannot be detached from their right to treat. Such right to issue certificates or prescriptions is imbibed in the
right to treat. One cannot and shall not be separated from the other. Once the right to treat is recognized, then the right to prescribe medicine or issue necessary certificate flows from it. Or else the right to treat cannot be completely protected. Hence, even assuming for a moment that the 1915 Notification is not there, still the appellants’ right to prescribe medicine cannot be denied. In that view of the matter, the order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. Therefore, the respondents shall make necessary arrangements to include the names of all the concerned Diploma holders in the State Medical Register for the limited purpose indicated therein within a period of six months from today.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Supreme Court Judgment
No Harassment to Alternative Medical Practitioners, Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India.
Latest contents of judgment of Hon’be Supreme court of India SLP (Civil) No. 11262/ 24/11/2000 (In the judgment and order date 18/11/1998 in F.A.Q. No.205/92).
For want of certain clarification etc. Delhi govt. & union of India (ministry of health & family welfare) has filled an appeal (SLP) in the Hon’ble supreme court of india challenging the order of Hon’ble Delhi high court dated 18/11/1998upon hearing on 12/11/2000. The division bench of Hon’ble justice R.C. Lahoti & Hon’ble justice Shivraj V. Patil has rejected the plea of Delhi govt. & union of India and finally on 24/11/2000 the bench of the Hon’ble court comprising justice Rajendra Babu and B.N. Agarwal has directed to entertain the matter and SLP Filled by petitioner (Delhi govt. & union of India ) has been dismissed. The Hon’ble supreme court of India also maintained that status quo of Hon’ble Delhi high court (FAO205/92) dated 18/11/1998 by which it has been ordered that any legally constituted institution imparting education facilities in the field of Alternative medicines may issue diploma / certificate and holder of such diploma / certificate are entitled to practice the particular faculties covered by the said diploma / certificate.
1. According to the judgment of high court Chennai, planning commission report & the latter of govt. (No.110/8/4/77MPT/ME(P)1979&No.4-6/70 MPT of govt. of India) The RMP certificate holder can practice in alternative medicine only he can’t practice in surgery , obstetrics & radiation therapy in any form. He cannot prescribed any medicine includes G,H&L of drugs & cosmetics rules 1945 and other dangers drug at any cost.
2. Council of Alternative System of Medicines run by Iatros medical society has conferred with the Establish & run alternative medicine & paramedical colleges, science and technological institutions, hospital, research center in all over India.
3. To promoting research & development of alternative medicine and paramedical science for diffusely of literary and scientific knowledge.
Legal Grounds
SOME LEGAL DECLARATION AND VARIOUS COURT'S ORDERS IN FAVOR OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM OF MEDICINE
1. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA :
In its final judgment write petitions no.17534-96/94 and no 36960 /94 noted the constitutional validity of section 16(2) 16(2A) etc in order to develop propagate and promote any alternative system of medicines no permission is required under any statute
2. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI :
Stated in its Judgment dt. 18/11/1998 of CWP No. 4015/1996 & OM No.8468/ 1997 in which the Government has to take proper action to regularize and recognize the alternative medicine in India.
3. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA :
In its final judgment constitution writ jurisdiction matter no 546 of 1988 dt. 07/05/1990 which has been reported in Calcutta Law Journal 1991 (2) CLJ page No. 173 to 187 held the following important points regarding the constitutional rights and legal validity of Alternative system of Medicines in India.
4. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA :
Stated in its final judgment of a case on alternative system of Medicine that “the judgment of Hon’ ble High court of Delhi must be strictly followed by the Govt. of India within Eight weeks” to regularise the alternative system of Medicines .
Union of india and Delhi Govt. fild by a SLP(civil) No. 11262/2000 against the judgment and order by Delhi high court CWP No. 4015/1996 dated 18/11/1998 in FAQ 205/92. The supreme court has dismissed the SLP Of Union of India and Delhi Govt. Dated 24/11/2000.
5. 05-05-2010 Electro Homoeopathy is governed vide no.25011/276/2009-HR dated 5th
6. 02-05-2008 Supreme Court recognized the practice. Maharashtra directorate Health. may 2010
7. 23-04-2008 Vijyanagaram Addi Judi Court Magistrate Recognized the BEMS Practice and kept it with in settled law.
8. 22-12-2006 Hon’ble Bombay High court recognized the Electro Homoeopathy Practice.
9. 10-01-2005 Metropolitan session court, Sec-bad Recognized MD (EH) Practice and Electro Homoeopathy Board also.
10. 25-11-2003 Central Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, and Department of Health Research recognized Electro homoeopathy.
11. 14-02-2003 Hon’ble Supreme court of India and Medical Council of India have declared that, those who are having community Medical Service & ED Certificate (CMS) of Rural medical practitioner (RMP) can do Practice on 42 drug groups of life saving drugs in Allopathy.
12. 16-05-2001 Hon’ble Metropolitan session court Sec-bad recognized the Electro homoeopathy Practice. The court also ordered that “Any Medical council, centre in India has no right to interfere in the Practice.
13. 23-10-2000 XI Metropolitan court, Sec-bad recognized the Practice of Electro Homoeopathy & relevant medical college also.
14. THE ORDER ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF H&FW) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESEARCH NO. V.25011/276/2009-HR Dated.05.05.2010&C.30011/22/2010-HR Dated 21.06.2011.
15. To give the rights of practicing to registered Medical Practitioners enrolled by the council as qualified physicians, without any restriction, and entitling them to issue medical certificates such as sickness, fitness etc of any other certificate required by any law. To establish the faculty to control the examinations of teaching and educational institutions or colleges etc; and to award degrees, diplomas, Certificates etc., thereof.
It is fact that many states including Tamilnadu have implemented clinical establishment Act. 2010. All states are giving honour and weight age to the order of Central Govt. dated 14/02/2011 with regard to education and practice of Electro Homoeopathy. On the suggestion and mutual consultation of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of India. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also passed order on 22/01/2015 that there is no ban on medical practice of Electro Homoeopathy.
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of India has already clarified on 14/02/2011 that Electro Homoeopathy is not applicable under clinical establishment (Registration & Regulation) Act. 2010 for registration to the clinics
of the practitioners of it but there is no practicing electro homoeopathy or imparting education as per central Govt. order V.25011/276/2009-HR Dated 05/05/2010.
Madras High Court has also passed an order on 28/11/2016 that as per Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of India order No. V.25011/276/2009-HR Dated 05/05/2010. The petitioner can rightfully practice Electro Homoeopathy Medicine in every state in India without hindrance. Hence, there is no need to take permission from local health authorities or joint director of health of the district of Tamilnadu. Government has already accepted this order as this order remains unchallenged by the state Govt. in Hon’ble Supreme court of India. Therefore, the state Govt. should also give honour of it.
Electro Homoeopathy legal and scientific analysis committee setup by Rajasthan Govt. consist of the experts of botanists, pharmacologists, clinical research, electro homoeopathy expert, of other medical system viz. senior scientist-17, CMO-40, legal expert-5 and other expert including vice chancellors of the universities of Rajasthan Govt.-16. On the basis of the evidences and documents received and examined, the committee has a clear judgment that electro homoeopathy is a simple, economical, accessible and secure therapeutic approach, it must be recognized in the state. Taking into consideration the utility and merits of electro homoeopathy, the committee expresses its though conviction and strongly recommends the state Government to draft essential law and initiate the statutory administrative process to grant due recognition to electro homoeopathy in the state. Ultimately on 09/03/2018 the Assembly of Rajasthan Govt. has passed Electro Homoeopathy System of Medicine Bill No. 13 of 2018 recognizing the system in Rajasthan State. Hon’ble Govt. of Rajasthan state has already signed on the Bill on 10th October, 2018. Therefore, Electro Homoeopathy system of medicine is a recognized system in a state like Rajasthan.
Calcutta High Court
Sanjib Das vs State Of W.B. & Ors on 27 November, 2013
Author: Banerjee
Form No. J.(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee
And
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
G.A. No. 3584 of 2008
G.A. No. 1619 of 2010
W.P. No. 1229 Of 2008
SANJIB DAS
VS.
STATE OF W.B. & ORS
For the Appellant/petitioner : Mr. Sakya Sen, Advocate
Mr. Subrata Goswami, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate
Ms. Debjani Roy, Advocate
For Medical Council of India : Mr.Saugata Bhattacharya, Advocate
Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 10 : Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 14 & 15 : Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, Senior Advocate
Heard on : November 8, 2013.
Judgment on : November 27, 2013.
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
Whether a person is having obtained a degree/certificate/diploma to practice alternative medicines can prefix 'Dr.' or 'Doctor' or any other such prefix to their names, falls for consideration in this writ petition. Petitioner alleges that the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 are representing themselves as doctors/medical practitioners by using a prefix 'Dr.' before their names. Petitioner has relied upon various prescriptions issued by the respondent Nos. 14 and 15. Petitioner says that neither respondent Nos. 14 nor 15 possess an M.B.B.S. degree or the basic minimum degree for them to describe themselves as doctors. Petitioner has made a representation to the Indian Medical Association on 3rd November, 2007. The Indian Medical Association forwarded the petitioner's complaint to the Commissioner of Police Kolkata to take necessary action. According to the petitioner, another body of medical practitioners namely I.M.A. academy of medical specialties also requested the Commissioner of Police Kolkata to take action. Petitioner claims that the Police Authorities did not take any action. Petitioner made representations to various authorities which did not evoke a favourable reply. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble
Court for seeking direction on the State respondents to initiate enquiry on the basis of Memo No HAD/6 R-37-2001/Pt-1/A 1573/1 dated 14th March, 2008 and a further order seeking the State respondent to ensure that the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 are restrained from representing themselves as doctors and /or from practicing as medical practitioners without possessing requisite qualification.
By an order dated 21st November, 2008, the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines was added as respondent No. 16. By an order dated 12th March, 2010 leave was granted to prosecute the petition in a representative capacity against the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 as representing all the persons who have been conferred the degrees/diplomas/certificates of registration by the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines Kolkata. Direction for affidavits has been issued from time to time. Affidavits have been filed by the respondent Nos. 11, 15 and 16. Advertisements have been published pursuant to the order dated 12th March, 2010. Affidavits have been filed by a member of the public seeking to support the system of alternative medicines and seeking to support the use of prefix Dr. before the name of practitioner on alternative medicine. Suman Motilal Shah claims to be a registered practitioner having diploma in magnet therapy under the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines has filed an affidavit opposing the grant of reliefs. Mr. Partha Mukherjee has filed a similar affidavit. An application for addition of party has been made on behalf of Suresh Chandra Majumder who states that several institutions enumerated in paragraph 6 to his application are issuing degrees/ diplomas/certificates and that candidates of such institutions are using the prefix doctor or Dr. and that they are not entitled to. Suresh Chandra Majumder seeks to support the petitioner. The institutions named in paragraph 6 to the application of Suresh Chandra Majumder who are added as respondents to the Writ Petition as respondent Nos. 17 to 21. The respondent No. 21 has used an affidavit opposing the writ petition.
The Indian Board of Alternative Medicines through its president has affirmed an affidavit stating that although the system of alternative medicines have not been recognized by any Central law or State law no law prohibiting its user is there in West Bengal. Although Dr. is used as prefix the term alternative medicines is used after the name of the practitioner in their letter heads which clarifies the position entirely, and that, therefore, there is no scope for misrepresentation if a prefix Dr. is used. It is also contended that Dr. is used to denote that the practitioner of alternative medicines are distinguished from quacks. The writ petition received the consideration of the Division Bench from time to time. By an order dated 12th March, 2010 the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 and similarly situate persons were restrained from using the title Doctor or Dr, in abbreviated forms with their names. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No. 14 and 15 and for that matter any person similarly situate as that of the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 are not entitled to use the prefix Doctor or Dr. to their names. He contends that none of the respondent Nos. 16 to 21 is recognized institutes within the meaning of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Certificates issued by the respondent Nos. 16 to 21 are not recognized in any of the schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The petitioner relies on section 6 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 to contend that user of doctor or Dr. without requisite permission, is a punishable offence. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 contends that they obtained valid certificates from the respondent no. 16. Having obtained such valid certificates they are entitled to practice alternative medicines. No law prohibits them from practicing alternative medicines. The respondent Nos. 14 and 15 contends that they have treated various patients as also obtained patent in respect of a particular medicine. They also contend that the members of the public are satisfied with the quality of medical relief given by them. The respondent No. 16 has used an elaborate affidavit. In such affidavit the respondent No. 16 has highlighted the various accolades that it received in its field from various institutions and personalities. It also relies on international practice.
In the second affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 16 it has been admitted that the system of alternative medicines has not been recognized by any Central law or State law. The respondent No. 16 however, contends that there is no law in West Bengal prohibiting the user of prefix doctor
or dr. prior to the names. Respondent No. 16 claims to be registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. It has also relied upon its rules and bye laws.
Respondent No. 21 a similarly situate as that of the respondent No. 16 has used an affidavit. In such affidavit the respondent No.21 claims itself to be an affiliated institution under Act XXVI of 1961. It claims that since persons practicing Homeopathy, Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha systems of medicines are entitled to use the prefix doctor it would be discriminatory if practitioners of alternative medicines are not allowed to use the same. Submissions have been made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 16 and 21 in line with their affidavit before us. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the records. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has come into effect from 30th December, 1956. The statement of objects and reasons of the 1956 Act postulate that the 1956 Act would provide for the maintenance of an all India register by the Medical Council of India which will contain the names of all Medical practitioners possessing recognized medical qualification.
Section 2(d) of the 1956 Act defines Indian Medical Register to mean the medical register maintained by the Council. Section 21 of the 1956 Act requires the Council to maintain in the prescribed manner a register of medical practitioners. Such register is deemed to be a public document within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Council is defined in section 2(b) of the 1956 Act to mean Medical Council of India constituted under the 1956 Act. A recognized medical qualification is defined by section 2(h) of the 1956 Act to mean any of the medical qualifications included in the schedules of the 1956 Act. It is an admitted position that none of the respondent Nos. 16 to 21 and the diplomas, degrees, certificates and licenses issued by them are recognized under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 15 of the 1956 Act gives right to persons possessing qualifications in the schedule to the Act of 1956 to be enrolled on any State Medical Register. State Medical Register is defined in Section 2(k) of the 1956 Act to mean a register maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of medicines. The Scheme of the 1956 as appearing in sections 10-A and 10-B shows that no medical qualification granted by a medical college except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with section 10-A shall be a recognized medical qualification for the purpose of the 1956 Act.
Section 11 of the 1956 Act deals with recognition with medical qualification granted by universities or medical institutions in India. The medical qualifications granted by any university or medical institution in India which are included in the first schedule to the said Act is to be recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the 1956 Act. Our attention has also been drawn to section 6 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916. The scheme of the two Acts leads us to hold, only a person holding a recognized medical qualification and having his name in Medical Register, is entitled to use "doctor" or "dr." as a prefix. Admittedly, the respondents Nos. 15 to 21 are not included to the first schedule of the said Act. Section 12 of the 1956 Act speaks of recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity. The second schedule specifies the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India. Section 13 of the 1956 Act speaks of recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions whose qualifications are not included in the first of the second schedule but recognized as medical qualifications for the purposes of the 1956 Act. The respondents Nos. 16 to 21 do not fall within the second of the third schedule of the 1956 Act.
Our attention has also been drawn to section 6 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916. The alternative medicines practiced by persons to whom diplomas, degrees, certificates or licenses have been given by the respondent Nos. 16 to 21 may receive favourable acceptance by institutions and personalities. Such acceptance does not in any manner confer a right on such persons to use the prefix doctor or dr. to their name. A person who has obtained a medical qualification in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and whose name appears in the register of medical practitioners as contemplated under the said Act of 1956, is entitled to use the prefix doctor or dr.. To allow any other person to use such prefix and to practice medicines would be against the scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916.
In such circumstances we allow writ petition directing the State Authorities to take appropriate action on the memo dated 14th March, 2008 as expeditiously as possible and restrain the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 and all other persons similarly situated, from using the prefix doctor or dr. in any manner whatsoever with their names. With the aforesaid directions this writ petition is disposed of. There would be however no order as to costs.
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, ACJ.
I agree (ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, ACJ.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)