From,
Dr.ch.srinivasa raju
Sri sidhardh E.N.T.hospital
N.R.PET
ELURU-6
Mobile:94901-72569.

To,


SUB: request for ACTION ON QUACKERY & QUACKS.

RESPECTED SIR,

You know, the importance of eradication of quack doctors (the so called RMP & PMPs) who without any medical qualification doing allopathic practice non-chalantly and putting the lives of gullible public in jeopardy in the mask of providing health care to rural people.
For that matter these quacks are every where. Not only in rural areas but also in towns & cities.
In view of this exonerous situation which is due to negligent govt.authorities and mushrooming of quacks, - our supreme court and high court have delivered important judgments to take stringent action on these so called quack doctors quoting sections in our constitution.
· A.P. HIGH COURT judgement dated. 7-2-2000, delieverd by hon. Justice I.Venkatnarayana, IN THE CASE OF writ petition no. 3003 of 1990.
· Supreme court judgment( citation sol no:279/ 2000 ) D.K.JOSHI Vs U.P.STATE GOVT.
Our constitution clearly told, that the quackery is a cognizable offence.
And so many acts clearly stating, “that only qualified doctors should do allopathic practice”.
Some acts:
· M.C.I. act with regard to quackery.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

Notification
No. MCI-211(2)/2001/Registration. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 20A read with section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Medical Council of India, with the previous approval of the Central Government, hereby makes the following regulations relating to the Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics for registered medical practitioners, namely:- Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

· Indian medical council act 1956-section 15.
· Indian medical degrees act of 1916
Andhra Pradesh Medical Council is a body corporate established by an Act of the State Legislature vide Act.No.23 of 1968, by integrating the hitherto State Medical Councils i.e. Hyderabad and Andhra Medical Council. For certain reasons, a notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.662 on 19th December 1991 constituting the Governing Body under the Provisions of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners (Amendment) Registration Act 1986.
20. Privileges of registered practitioners:-
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force :-

(i)no person other than a registered practitioner shall, without the previous sanction of the Government be competent to hold any appointment as physician, surgeon or other medical officer in any approved institution which is supported wholly or partly out of the funds of the State or the fund of a local authority.


(ii)no person other than a registered practitioner shall, with effect from such date as may be specified by the Government by notification in this behalf, practise the modern scientific medicine or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication as practicing or as being prepared to so practise.


(iii)no certificate required by law to be given by a medical practitioner shall be valid unless signed by a registered practitioner.
Top

CHAPTER VIII

penalties
21.
Penalty for falsely claiming to be registered:-

Whoever falsely represents himself to be a registered practitioner shall, whether any person is actually deceived by such representation or not, be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

22.Penalty for contravention of provisions of clause(ii) of Section 20:-
Whoever contravenes the provisions of clause (ii) of section 20 shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, and on any subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
23.Failure to surrender certificate of registration:-
If any person whose name has been removed or deleted from the register under section 17 fails without sufficient cause to surrender his certificate or registration within the prescribed time, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees per month of such failure and in the case of a continuing offence, with an additional fine which may extend to ten rupees for every day during which such offence continues after conviction for the first such offence.

24.Jurisdiction of magistrate:-
No court inferior to that of a magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
Top


· Drugs and cosmetic act 1940
· Drugs and magic remedies act 1954. THE DRUGS AND MAGIC REMEDIES (OBJECTIONABLE ADVERTISEMENTS) ACT, 1954 ACT NO. 21 OF 1954 1* [30th April, 1954.] An Act to control the advertisement of drugs in certain cases, to prohibit the advertisement for certain purposes of remedies alleged to possess magic qualities and to provide for matters connected therewith. BE it enacted by Parliament as follows:- 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 1. (1)Short title, extent and commencement. This Act may be called the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. (2)It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and applies also to persons domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories. (3.)It shall come into force on such date2* as the Central Government may. by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. 2. Definitions. 2.Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) " advertisement " includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light, sound or smoke; (b) drug " includes- (i) a medicine for the internal or external use of human beings or animals ; (ii) any substance intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in human beings or animals; (iii)any article, other than food, intended to affect or influence in any way the structure or any organic function of the body of human beings or animals; (iv)any article intended for use as a component of any medicine, substance or article, referred to in subclauses (i), (ii) and (iii) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 This Act has been extended to Pondicherry by Reg. 7 of 1963, S. 3 and Sch. I (w.e.f. 1-10-1963).** 2 1st April 1955, vide Notification No. S. R. O. 511, dated 26th February, 1955, Gazette of India, 1955, Pt. II, Sec. 3, p. 449. ** Extend to and brought into force in Dadra and Nagar Heveli (w.e.f. 1.7.65) by Ref. 6 of 1963, s.2 Sch. I. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 102 (c) " magic remedy " includes a talisman, mantra, kavacha, and any other charm of any kind which is alleged to possess miraculous powers for or in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any disease in human beings or animals or for affecting or influencing in any way the structure or any organic function of the body of human beings or animals ; 1*[(cc) "registered medical practitioner" means any person,- (i)who holds a qualification granted by an authority specified in, or notified under, section 3 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 (7 of 1916) or specified in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) ; or (ii)who is entitled to be registered as a medical practitioner under any law for the time being in force in any State to which this Act extends relating to the registration of medical practitioners ;] (d) taking any part in the publication of any advertisement includes- (i) the printing of the advertisement, (ii)the publication of any advertisement outside the territories to which this Act extends by or at the instance of a person residing within the said territories; 2* * * * * * * 3. Prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for treatment of certaindiseases and disorders. 3.Prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for treatment of certain diseases and disorders. Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement referring to any drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that drug for- (a) the procurement of miscarriage in women or prevention of conception in women; or (b) the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of human beings for sexual pleasure ; or (c) the correction of menstrual disorder in women ; or 3*[(d) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any disease, disorder or condition specified in the Schedule, or any other disease, disorder or condition (by whatsoever name called) which may be specified in the rules made under this Act: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Ins. by Act 42 of 1963, s. 2. 2 Cl. (e) omitted by s. 2, ibid. 3 Subs. by s. 3, ibid., for cl. (d). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 103 Provided that no such rule shall be made except- (i)in respect of any disease, disorder or condition which requires timely treatment in consultation with a registered medical practitioner or for which there are normally no accepted remedies, and (ii)after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board constituted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) and, if the Central Government considers necessary, with such other persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicines as that Govern- ment deems fit.] 4. Prohibition of misleading advertisements relating to drugs. 4.Prohibition of misleading advertisements relating to drugs. Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement relating to a drug if the advertisement contains any matter which- (a) directly or indirectly gives a false impression regarding the true character of the drug; or (b) makes a false claim for the drug;or (c) is otherwise false or misleading inany material particular. 5 Prohibition of advertisement of magic remedies for treatment ofcertain diseases and disorders. 5.Prohibition of advertisement of magic remedies for treatment of certain diseases and disorders. No person carrying on or purporting to carry on the profession of administering magic remedies shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement referring to any magic remedy which directly or indirectly claims to be efficacious for any of the purposes specified in section 3. 6 Prohibition of import into, and export from India of certainadvertisements. 6.Prohibition of import into, and export from India of certain advertisements. No person shall import into, or export from, the territories to which this Act extends any document containing an advertisement of the nature referred to in section 3, or section 4, or section 5, and any documents containing any such advertisements shall be deemed to be goods of which the import or export has been prohibited under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1878) and all -the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly, except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word " shall " therein the word " may " were substituted. 7. Penalty. 7.Penalty. Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act 1*[or the rules made thereunder] shall, on conviction, be punishable- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Ins. by Act 42 of 1963, s. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 104(a) in the case of a first conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both; (b) in the case of a subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 8. Powers of entry, search, etc. 1*[8. (1)Powers of entry, search, etc. Subject to the provisions of any rules made in this behalf, any Gazetted Officer authorised by the State Government may, within the local limits of the area for which he is so authorised,- (a) enter and search at all reasonable times, with such assistants, if any, as he considers necessary, any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed ; (b) seize any advertisement which he has reason to believe contravenes any of the provisions of this Act: Provided that the power of seizure under this clause may be exercised in respect of any document, article or thing which contains any such advertisement, including the contents, if any, of such document, article or thing, if the advertisement cannot be separated by reason of its being embossed or otherwise, from such document, article or thing without affecting the integrity, utility or saleable value thereof ; (c) examine any record, register, document or any other material object found in any place mentioned in clause (a) and seize the same if he has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act. (2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), shall, so far as may be, apply to any search or seizure under this Act as they apply to any search or seizure made under the authority of a warrant issued under section 98 of the said Code. (3) Where any person seizes anything under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), he shall, as soon as may be, inform a Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof.] 9. Offences by companies. 9. (1)Offences by companies. If the person contravening any of the provisions of this Act is a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Subs. by Act 42 of 1963, s. 5, for s. 8. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 105 Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director or manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director manager, secretary or other officer of the company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) " company " means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals, and (b)" director " in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. 1*[9A.Offences to be cognizable. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (5 of 1898) an offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable.] 10. Jurisdiction to try offences. 10.Jurisdiction to try offences. No court inferior to that of a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. 2*[10A.Forfeiture. Where a person has been convicted by any court for contravening any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, the court may direct that any document (including all copies thereof), article or thing, in respect of which the contravention is made, including the contents thereof where such contents are seized under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 8, shall be forfeited to the Government.] 11.Officers to be deemed to be public servants. 11.Officers to be deemed to be public servants. Every person authorised under section 8 shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860). 12. Indemnity. 12.Indemnity. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Ins. by Act 42 of 1963, s. 6. 2 Ins. by s. 7, ibid, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 106 13.Other laws not affected. 13.Other laws not affected. The provisions of this Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. 14. Savings. 1*[14.Savings. Nothing in this Act shall apply to- (a) any sign board or notice displayed by a registered medical practitioner on his premises indicating that treatment for any disease, disorder or condition specified in section 3, the Schedule or the rules made under this Act, is undertaken in those premises ; or (b) any treatise or book dealing with any of the matters specified in section 3 from a bona fide scientific or social standpoint ; or (c) any advertisement relating to any drug sent confidentially in the manner prescribed under section 16 only to a registered medical practitioner ; or (d) any advertisement relating to a drug printed or published by the Government ; or (e) any advertisement relating to a drug printed or published by any person with the previous sanction of the Government granted prior to the commencement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Amendment Act, 1963 (42 of 1963); Provided that the Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, withdraw the sanction after giving the person in opportunity of showing cause against such withdrawal.] 15 Power to exempt from application of Act. 15.Power to exempt from application of Act. If in the opinion of the Central Government public interest requires that the advertisement of any specified drug or class of drugs 2*[or any specified class of advertisements relating to drugs] should be permitted, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 or any one of such provisions shall not apply or shall apply subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification to or in relation to the advertisement of any such drug or class of drugs 2*[or any such class of advertisements relating to drugs]. 16. Power to make rules 16. (1)Power to make rules. The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Subs, by Act 42 of 1963, s. 8, for s. 14. 2 Ins. by s. 9, ibid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 106A (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may- (a) specify any 1*[disease, disorder or condition] to which the provisions of section 3 shall apply (b) prescribe the manner in which advertisements of articles or things referred to in clause (c) of 2* *** sections 14 may be sent confidentially. 3*[(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be ; so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.] SCHE [See sections 3 (d) and 14.] 4*[THE SCHEDULE [See sections 3 (d) and 14.] S.. No. Name of the disease, disorder or condition 1. Appendicitis 2. Arteriosclerosis 3. Blindness 4. Blood poisoning 5. Bright's disease 6. Cancer 7. Cataract 8. Deafness 9. Diabetes 10. Diseases and disorders of the brain 11. Diseases and disorders of the optical system ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Subs by Act 42 of 1963, s. 10, for "disease or condition". 2 The words brackets and figure"sub-section (1) of" omitted by s.10, ibid. 3 Ins. by s. 10, ibid. 4 Ins. by s. 11, ibid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 106B S. No. Name of the disease, disorder or condition 12. Diseases and disorders of the uterus 13. Disorders, of menstrual flow 14. Disorders of the nervous system 15. Disorders of the prostatic gland 16. Dropsy 17. Epilepsy 18. Female diseases (in general) 19. Fevers (in general) 20. Fits 21. Form and structure of the female bust 22. Gall stones, kidney stones and bladder stones 23. Gangrene 24. Glaucoma 25. Goitre 26. Heart diseases 27. High or low blood pressure 28. Hydrocele 29. Hysteria 30. Infantile paralysis 31. Insanity 32. Leprosy 33. Leucoderma 34. Lockjaw 35. Locomotor ataxia 36. Lupus 37. Nervous debility 38. Obesity 39. Paralysis 40. Plague 41. Pleurisy 42. Pneumonia 43. Rheumatism 44. Ruptures 106c S. No. Name of the disease, disorder or condition 45. Sexual impotence 46. Smallpox 47. Stature of persons 48. Sterility in women 49. Trachoma 50. Tuberculosis 51. Tumours 52. Typhoid fever 53. Ulcers of the gastrointestinal tract 54. Venereal diseases, including syphilis, gonorrhoea, soft chancre, venereal granuloma and lympho granuloma.]

· United provinces act 1917 –section 30.
· Indian medicine central council act 1970-section 17.

Actually, the govt.should have to take necessary steps and initiate severe disciplinary action by implementing those acts and judgements to improve the quality in health care.
But the govt. Is not fulfilling this responsibility.

Taking stock of these circumstances, our west godavari IMA fighting for the justice since 10 years, requesting all concerned authorities and at last filed a case in lokayukta in frustration.

The lokayukta gave directions for booking cases against R.M.P& P.M.P.’s by issuing orders to the west godavari collector and S.P. and D.M. &H.O.

THE CASE was REGISTERED BY A.P. LOKAYUKTA—
PROCEEDINGS NO: 881/2004/B1/LOK/6875/2004/DT.17-9-2004—FILED BY.DR.G.APPA RAO, ELURU IMA BRANCH.( INVESTIGATION IS closed in june-2007 due to relevant pending case in high court.)

Immediately, the state association of PMP’s got the stay order by filing petition ( W.P. 21526 OF 2005 ) IN THE A.P. HIGH COURT. This is in the admission stage.
Previously also this PMP’s association filed a case ( WP no: 22702 of 2002 ) in the honorable high court against the director general of police under the section 151 of CPC, which is still pending for abjudication. Actually this case is in final hearing stage.
A.P. HIGH COURTCASE STATUS INFORMATION SYSTEM
STATUS OF : WP 22702 of 2002
STAGE : FINAL HEARING
THE PRIVATE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' ASSOCIATION OF INDAI, V/S GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD.
PET.Advocate : VINOD KUMAR DESHPANDE
RES.Advocate : G.JYOTHI KIRAN
SR-Number: WP SR 121643/2002
District: WEST GODAVARI
Lower Court Number :
Subject : DIRECTOR OF INDIAN MEDICINE & HOMEOPATHY
Last Time Listed On : 04-Jul-2007
Next Date Of Listing : 11-Jul-2007
Misc. Petitions filed :
WPMP 28484/2002




DISPOSED
STATUS OF : WP 22702 of 2002
STAGE : FINAL HEARING
THE PRIVATE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' ASSOCIATION OF INDAI, V/S GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD.
PET.Advocate : VINOD KUMAR DESHPANDE
RES.Advocate : G.JYOTHI KIRAN
SR-Number: WP SR 121643/2002
District: WEST GODAVARI
Lower Court Number :
Subject : DIRECTOR OF INDIAN MEDICINE & HOMEOPATHY
Last Time Listed On : 25-Jul-2007

Misc. Petitions filed :
Disposed On : 01-Aug-2007
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY


Connected Matters :

Click Here to see the Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN:PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 22702 of 2002
Between:
The Private Medical Practitioners' Association of India, A.P.State Branch, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, Rep. by its President, Sirigineedi Nagabhushanam, ..... PETITIONER
AND

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.2 The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring the memorandum No.10343/K1/95-2 dated 22-08-1995 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st Respondent herein, communicated by the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajahmundry, proc. Rc.No.4093/Steno/95, dated 25-09-1995 as illegal and void and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to consider the representations, latest of which is dated 9-8-2002 submitted by the petitioner, especially keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr. MUKHTIAR CHAND & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS reported in 1998(7) SCC Page 579, for enlisting the members of the petitioners- Association as a separate category under the A.P.Medical Practitioners Registration Act.1968;

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support there of and the order of the High court dated 14-11-2002 made in WPMP.No. 28484 of 2002, and upon hearing the arguments of SRI VINOD KUMAR DESHPANDE, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Govt. Pleader for M & H for the respondent No.1 and of the Govt. Pleader for Home for the respondent No.2, the Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 22702 of 2002


Dated: 01-08-2007
Between:

The Private Medical Practitioners’ Association
of India, rep., by its President,
Tadepalligudem,
West Godavari District.
..... PETITIONER
AND

Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep., by its secretary,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

.....RESPONDENTS

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No. 22702 of 2002


O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the Memorandum No.10343/K1/95-2, dated 22-08-1995, issued by the first respondent as illegal.

The grievance of the petitioner-association is that in terms of the proceedings, dated 25-04-1975, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, it has been making representations to first respondent to ensure an appropriate legislation is brought out to regulate the activities of the Private Medical Practitioners without the recognized degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act or similar Acts to treat the patients and that first respondent has not been taking any action in this regard. Petitioner filed a copy of the representation dated 09-08-2002 along with the writ petition.

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 25-07-2007, the learned Government Pleader for Health and Family Welfare took time to report to the Court about the stage of the consideration of the representation made by the petitioner-association.

Today, Sri P.Harinath, advocate representing the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health placed before the Court a memo dated 30-07-2007 addressed to the learned Government Pleader by the Principal Secretary to Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare-K2 Department, wherein it is mentioned that the representation dated 09-08-2002 has not been received in the Health and Medical Family Welfare Department and therefore, the same is not pending with it.

When the contents of this memo are brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation to the first respondent and that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate decision on such representation being made.

Learned counsel representing the Government Pleader says that he has no objection for disposal of the writ petition in the above terms.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in following terms :
1) Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation within two weeks from today and
2) On receipt of such representation, the first respondent shall take appropriate decision on the same within a period of eight weeks.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
------------------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J

Date: 01-08-2007
Note: Issue C.C. in three days.
B/o
KLP
______________________________________________________________________
In 2005, these PMP’s submitted a memorandum to recognize their profession by giving legal sanctity. It is the height of anarchism in our society.
A memorandum (dt. 11-4-2005) of request for recognition of PMP’s , has been submitted by the president modugu.krishna rao - PMP association of India ( reg.no:2179 under societies act).
In reacting to this above memorandum, addl.secretary to health A.P.govt. sri. B.N.S.KUMAR has sent a letter ( memo no: 8078/ k1/ 2005-1 ) to the director of medical education for opinion. It is still pending in DME office.

THE PMP association filed their petition ( W.P. no: 21526 OF 2005 ) basing on violation of articles 14, 16, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the constitution.

A.P. HIGH COURT CASE STATUS INFORMATION SYSTEM

STATUS OF : WP 21526 of 2005
STAGE : ADMISSION (MEDICIAL AND HEALTH)
THE PRIVATE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ASSN., E.G.DISTRICT. V/S THE GOVT. OF A.P, HYDERABAD ADN ANOTHER
PET.Advocate : B.PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY
RES.Advocate : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE
SR-Number: /
District: WEST GODAVARI
Lower Court Number :
Subject : MEDICAL & HEALTH,FAMILY WELFARE(MISC.MATTERS)
Last Time Listed On : 04-Oct-2005
Next Date Of Listing : 05-Oct-2005
Misc. Petitions filed :
WPMP 27611/2005
Connected Matters :
WP 22702/2005


Even though every one knows, here is Some information about these articles for ready reference.
Articles:numberwise
14. Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.—(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All citizens shall have the right—
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
* * * * *
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,—
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.
21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

This PMP association has already filed one petition in the high court ( W.P. NO: 22702 OF 2002)under section 151 of CPC. thats why they have been quoted the following article- 226 in their petition.
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,
makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
226A. [Constitutional validity of Central laws not to be considered in proceedings under article 226.] Rep. by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, s. 8 (w.e.f. 13-4-1978)..
SECTION 151 OF CPC :. Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences.
(1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.(2) No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorized under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force.

[(f) “medical practitioner” means a person—

(i) holding a qualification granted by an authority specified or notified under section 3 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 (7 of 1916), or specified in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956); or

(ii) registered or eligible for registration in a medical register of a State meant for the registration of persons practising the modern scientific system of medicine; or

(iii) registered in a medical register of a State, who, although not falling within sub-clause(i) or sub-clause (ii) is declared by a general or special order made by the State Government in this behalf as a person practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of this Act; or

(iv) registered or eligible for registration in the register of dentists for a State under the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948); or

(v) who is engaged in the practise of veterinary medicine and who possesses qualifications approved by the State Government;]

LANDMARK CASE
LANDMARK CASE
Dr. K. Mathiharan (Consultant Legal Medicine)Institute of Legal Medicine53/27, 5th Street, Padmanabha Nagar, Adayar,Chennai - 600 020The NCDRC’s order did not accept the claim of medical professionals who argued that the doctor-patient relationship is similar to master – servant relationship, which is a contract of personal service that should be exempted from CPA. But the NCDRC’s order decreed that the doctor – patient relationship is a contract for personal service and it is not master – servant relationship. It is also said that the doctor is an independent contractor and the doctor, like the servant, is hired to perform a specific task. However, the master or principal (the hirer) is allowed to direct only what is to be done, and done, and when. The ‘how’ is left up to the specific discretion of the independent contractor (doctor). So, the doctor-patient relationship is a contract for personal service and as such, cannot be excluded from CPA.Highlights of the Supreme Court of India judgment in Indian Medical Association Vs V.P. Shantha and Others As a result of this judgment, medical profession has been brought under the Section 2(1) (o) of CPA, 1986 and also, it has included the following categories of doctors/hospitals under this Section:
1. All medical / dental practitioners doing independent medical / dental practice unless rendering only free service.2. Private hospitals charging all patients.3. All hospitals having free as well as paying patients and all the paying and free category patients receiving treatment in such hospitals.4. Medical / dental practitioners and hospitals paid by an insurance firm for the treatment of a client or an employment for that of an employee.It exempts only those hospitals and the medical / dental practitioners of such hospitals which offer free service to all patients.Further, this judgment concedes that the summary procedure prescribed by the CPA would suit only glaring cases of negligence and in complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of the evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the civil courts.Also, this judgment says that the deficiency in service means only negligence in a medical negligence case and it would be determined under CPA by applying the same test as is applied in an action for damages for negligence in a civil court.
As a result of this judgment, virtually all private and government hospitals and the doctors employed by them and the independent medical / dental practitioners except primary health centers, birth control measures, anti malaria drive and other such welfare activities can be sued under the CPA.
Structure of Consumer Forums / Commissions and Their Jurisdictions

SUPREME COURT(Final Appeal)



Appellate Authority over State Commission Revisional Jurisdiction
NATIONAL COMMISSION
Original Jurisdiction OverRs.20,00,000


Appellate Authority for District ForumSuo moto Revision
STATE COMMISSION
Original Jurisdiction over Rs. 5,00,000 up to Rs. 20,00,000



DISTRICT FORUM
Original Jurisdiction up to Rs. 5,00,000

Structure of Consumer Forums / Commissions and Their JurisdictionsThe maximum time limit for a claim to be filed under CPA is 2 years from the date of occurrence of the cause of action. There is no court fees to be paid to file a complaint in a Consumer Forum / Commission. Further, a complainant/opposite party can present his case on his own without the help of a lawyer.As per the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, a complaint filed in the Consumer Forum / Commission shall be adjudicated, within a period of 90 days from the date of notice by opposite party and within 150 days if it requires analysis or testing of commodities.
Regulation of The Practice of Medicine:

Indian Medical Council Act,1956
Regulates the profession of Allopathic medicine by constituting Medical Council of India (MCI) and the State Medical Councils.
Authorizes the Medical Council of India (MCI) to recognize the medical qualifications granted by any Authority or Institution of India or other countries.
Authorized the MCI to maintain a register of medical practitioners to be known as the Indian Medical register, which consists of the entries of all the State Registers of medical practitioners.
Empowers the State Medical Councils to punish persons who falsely claim to be registered or misuse titles and when medicine is practiced by unregistered persons, with fine or imprisonment or both.
Authorizes the MCI to prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette or Code of Ethics for medical practitioners. The violations of these standards constitute infamous conduct (professional misconduct).State Medical Councils are empowered to take disciplinary action when prescribed standards of professionals conduct and etiquette or Code of Ethics are not observed by the doctors and violations of which constitute professional misconduct / Infamous conduct.Under the following circumstances, a doctor can be temporarily or permanently debarred from practicing medicine.
1. Improper or indecent conduct towards the patient2. Conviction in a Court of Law3. Failure or dereliction of duty in giving professional certificates, reports and other documents4. Contravening the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 19405. Selling scheduled poison6. Performing or abetting an illegal operation7. Receiving or giving commission or using touts8. Employing unqualified persons9. Associations with (drug) manufacturing firms10.Advertisements11.Running shops (dispensing chemists) etc.12.Failure to give professional service for certain things on religious grounds.
An aggrieved patient can complain to the State Councils about a registered medical practitioner about an alleged wrong committed by him. The Council initiates proper hearing where the concerned doctor is given adequate opportunities to represent his side. If it arrives at the conclusion that the doctor has indeed committed an act, which involves an abuse of professional position that might reasonably by regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by professional men of good repute and competence, the doctor is either given a warning notice or temporarily or permanently debars him for practicing medicine. The Council does not have any statutory powers to award any compensation to the aggrieved patient or legal heirs.The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 also provides certain privileges to all the registered medical practitioners.

Rights and Privileges of Registered Medical Practitioners Conferred by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
1. Right to choose a patient2. Right to add title, descriptions of the academic qualifications to the name3. Right to practice medicine4. Right to dispense medicines5. Right to possess and supply dangerous drugs to the patients6. Right to recovery of fees7. Right for appointment to public and local hospitals8. Right to issue medical certificates9. Right to give evidence as an expert in Court of Law
Civil Courts
The aggrieved patients can file a case against the doctor for monetary compensation for which the patient to pay court fees that depends upon the compensation sought.Probably, due to near acceptance of medical negligence as inevitable by the patients and their relatives or local settlements, not many cases have reached the apex court of law in the past.The legal remedies are based on the law of Torts, Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 185536 and the Section 357 of Cr. P.C., 197337. But to avail it, an aggrieved patient have to wait for years and spend considerable amount of money on litigations.The civil court cases take care the route of Sub-Court, District Court, High Court and Supreme Court.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP), 1969
This Act is the precursor of CPA, 1986. Before the advent of CPA, this Act was the only resource to consumers against the unfair trade practices. The commission that looks into the disputes brought under MRTP Act based in New Delhi.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
An aggrieved patient can directly approach the High Court or the Supreme Court when his/her grievances was not properly redressed. PILs are usually resorted when public health programmes are not implemented properly. Some of the landmark judgements on Supreme Court on health are the result of PILs.
Indian Penal Code and Medical Negligence
Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 52, 80, 81, 83, 88, 90, 91, 92 304-A, 337 and 338 contain the law of medical malpraxis in India.A physician can be charged with criminal negligence when a patient dies from the effects of anesthesia during, an operation or other kind of treatment, if it can be proved that the death was the result if malicious intention, or gross negligence. Before the administration of anaesthesia or performance of an operation, the medical man is expected to follow the accepted precautions.In such cases, the physician should be able to prove that he used reasonable and ordinary care in the treatment of his patient to the best of his judgment. He is, however, not liable for an error judgment. The law expects a duly qualified physician to use that degree of skill and care which an average man of his qualifications ought to have, and does not expect him to bring the highest possible degree of skill in the treatment of his patients, or to be able to guarantee cures.It has long been recognized that criminal liability of a physician may result from a high degree of negligent conduct. What the law calls criminal negligence is largely a matter of degree; it is incapable of a precise definition. To prove whether or not it exists is like chasing a mirage. It requires that any of the following to be established in a case of criminal medical negligence.“Gross Lack of competency or gross inattention, or wanton indifferences to the patient’s safety, which may arise from gross ignorance of the science of medicine and surgery or through gross negligence, either in the application and selection of remedies, lack of proper skill in the use of instruments and failure to give proper attention to the patient.” (Hampton v State 38; State v Lester)In R. v Bateman (1925), Dr. Bateman was prosecuted for manslaughter and the charges of negligence made against him were:i) Causing the internal ruptures in performing the operations of ‘version’;ii) Removing part of the uterus along with the placenta;iii) Delay in sending the patient to the infirmary.The trial court convicted him. But the Court of Appeal held: “ ….. in order to establish criminal liability, the facts must be such that, …. the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and should such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct punishment.”When a FIR (First Information Report) is filed against a doctor for the death of a patient who was under his treatment, under this Indian Penal Code Section 304-A the doctor can be arrested. A doctor charged under this section can obtain bail and if proved guilty, the doctor can be punished with a maximum of two years imprisonment or fine or both. But, if the patient is alive, the doctor is charged under the Indian Penal Code Section 337 and 33843.The Indian Courts have been very careful not to hold qualified physicians criminally (instances of quacks for criminal negligence are there) liable for patients’ deaths that are the result of a mere mistake of judgment in the selection and application of remedies and when the death resulted merely from an error of judgment or an inadvertent death.
RELATED CASES
The complainant alleged that her husband died due to the complications arising after kidney biopsy. The State Commission held that the complainant had suppressed the crucial facts in her complaint. Besides serious life threatening diseases, the deceased was already suffering from tuberculosis and staphylococcus aureus septicaemia (a serious infection of the blood by bacteria). These are very serious diseases with a very high mortality rate especially when the heart, lung and brain get infected. Hence, the complainant had not come with clean hands and thus disentitled herself to relief under this jurisdiction of the C.P. Act. Complaint dismissed with Rs. 1,500/- as costs (SUBH LATA v. CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE (Punjab SCDRC O.C. No. 14 of 1994 decided on 15.6.1994; 1994 (2) CPR 691; 1995 (1) CPJ 365; 1995 CCJ 512
The complainant’s 18-year-old son was suffering from chronic renal failure and was advised renal transplantation. He was admitted in the hospital and dialysis was done for which a venous catheter was introduced in the right thigh and kept in situ (same position of the body) as he would require frequent dialysis. But due to lack of proper care like frequent dressing and medical attention, this site developed pus formation leading to A.V. Fistula, which resulted in gangrene of the right leg. In order to save the life of the patient, amputation of the leg was necessary. The patient died after 20 days. The opposite did not appear in the State Commission. The case was decided in favour of the complainant on the basis of the affidavits filed by the complainant and another experienced doctor who testified in favour of the complainant. A compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with Rs. 1,000/- as costs to be paid by the opposite party within 30 days from the receipt of this letter, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realization. SHIVAJI GENDEO CHAVAN v. CHIEF DIRECTOR, WANLESS HOSPITAL & Anr. (Maharashtra SCDRC Complaint No. 451 of 1993 3.12.1994 (3) CPJ 43)
The complainant was operated for gallstones but subsequently he developed structure near the bulbous urethra due to which he could enjoy sex and could not pass urine easily. He ultimately had to be operated at a Urological Hospital for relief and heavy amount had to be spent due to negligent performance of his first operation. The State Commission observed as under and the complaint was dismissed. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that there was any negligence on the art of the opponent in performing the operation on July 30,1992 and that it was a result of such negligence that second operation became necessary. First operation was on account of multiple gallstones whereas the second operation became operation became necessary. First operation was on account of small strictures near bulbous urethra. Connection between the two operations has not been established. In other words, it is not proved that the second operation became necessary on account of negligence in the performance of the first operation. There is no certificate of the doctor of the urological hospital at Nadiad wherein it is alleged to have been stated that the second operation became necessary on account of the first operation on record. In the absence of any expert evidence, we cannot hold the opponent who has stated that he had performed the operation on the complainant carefully and that the complainant had not complained of pain when he was discharged from the hospital and thereafter. There is also some force in the opponent’s submissions that if the complainant was suffering from intense pain as alleged by him, he would not have waited for seven months to consult Dr. Rajguru. There is nothing in the documentary evidence placed on record, which would support the allegations made by the complainant. The complaint dismissed without costs. JAYANTILAL GOVINDALAL PARMAR v. MANAGING TRUSTEE & Ors. (1997 (1) CPJ 295:1997 (2) CPR 9 (Gujarat SCDRC)
The complainant was admitted in a private hospital for pain in the neck on the right shoulder. Investigations reveled that he was a diabetic and had right hydronephrosis with obstruction at right uretrovesical junction. The complainant underwent surgery by retroperitoneal approach. The affected portion of the ureter was removed and uretric reimplantation was done. During the postoperative period, the complainant developed high fever and further investigations showed that a stapler pin was seen in the gastrointestinal tract. The complainant got discharged against medical advice. The allegation was that the pin was left there during the operation. The surgeon stated that the surgical staplers are V or U shaped and used in clusters in surgeries involving large intestine. The stapler pin seen in the x-ray is not a stapler pin. It resembles the stapler pins used un food pockets. Evidently, this stapler pin should have been swallowed. The State Commission held that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the hospital and dismissed the complaint without costs. C.J. LAWRENCE v. APOLLO HOSPITALS (Tamilnadu SCDRC O.P. No. 8/94 Decided on 05.08.1998).



Put quacks in the dock:
The Delhi Medical Association has critically examined the notification issued by the Medical Council of India in the Gazette of India with regard to the character of physician. The regulation prohibits a person qualified in any other system of medicine from practising the modern system of medicine or surgery. The DMA is of the view that the regulation does not specify any punitive action against either quacks or the doctors from other systems of medicine, who are practising modern medicine.
“The regulation is not as stringent as it should be because it does not spell out any deterrent punishment, says Dr Anil Gupta, President elect, DMA. The regulation under the head Code of Medical Ethics reads, “No person other than a doctor having qualification recognised by the Medical Council of India and registered with Medical Council of India/State Medical Council(s) is allowed to practice modern system of medicine or surgery. A person obtaining qualification in any other system of medicine is now allowed to practise modern system of medicine in any form.”
While drawing attention to the MCI Act, 1956, Dr Bansal said that only MBBS doctors were eligible for the registration with the State Medical Council or the MCI and only the registered doctors could practise the modern system of medicine.
In 1971, the Ayurvedic Board introduced BAMS (Bachelor of Integrated Medicine and Surgery) to practise allopathy. This course lasted about four years. Under pressure from the government, they were forced to revert to BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery).
“We are not against Ayurvedic or homeopathic practitioners. We are against the quackery. Persons are practising by displaying various degrees as MBBS (BIO), MBBS (A), PMP (Private Medical Practitoners), Bengali Doctor, BAMS (MD) and playing with the lives of patients.’’

Dear sir,
As a responsible citizen , every one should participate in this fight against quackery,which nonchalantly crippling the gullible public’s health.

Thanking you sir,


yours sincierly,

ch.srinivasa raju.