regulatory compliance in healthcare: a judicial review

Criminal Forgery

Posted by: Aditya Pratap Law Offices on 2024-07-19

---

The case in question revolves around a medical practitioner. Advocate Aditya Pratap got the order against the practitioner for practicing without registration. As per the court records, Mr. Practitioner initially registered himself as a medical practitioner on December 31, 1971. However, complications arose when it was revealed that he had failed to renew his registration, leading to his removal from the medical register in the year 1988-1989. 

Subsequently, the Practitioner attempted to apply for fresh registration on 08/10/2013. Considering this aspect and the provisions of  The Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act along with allied Acts Indian Medical Council Act and Indian Medical Council Regulation it reveals that there are prima facie ingredients made out for attracting provisions of cognizable offense more particularly sections 33 and 38 of the Indian Medical Practitioners act. In which sections provides that persons not registered under the act (Medical Practitioner Act,1953 or in other acts related to medical practice) cannot practice. No person other than registered under this act or the above-mentioned acts can do a medical practice. Honorable Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37^th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai direct the investigation of this complaint to be made as provided in section 156(3)(Magistrate has discretion to direct police investigation into complaint without passing elaborate orders) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 

 The Magistrate ordered for careful examination of the complaint and accompanying exhibits, particularly Exhibit F which detailed Mr. Practitioner's registration history.  The Magistrate also found the prima facie evidence suggesting the commission of a cognizable offense with the provision of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act and allied legislation. Center to the Magistrate’s decision was Section 33 and Section 38 of the Indian Medical Practitioners Act, which likely pertain to the illegal practice of the medicine or the consequences of practicing without valid registration. These sections are crucial as they underscore the importance of registration requirements for medical practitioners, ensuring public trust and safety in healthcare services. 

Same as invoking the power of section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the section which is directed by the Magistrate for initiation of the investigation into the complaint.

WHAT DOES THIS MEANS FOR PATIENTS?   

This case is important for patients because it ensures that doctors are held accountable for their actions. When doctors don’t follow the rules, it can put a patient’s health at risk. By enforcing registration laws, the Judiciary is protecting patient’s rights and safety. This ensures the people about their and their family’s health. The unregistered practitioners might get stopped from doing illegal practice by registering themselves into the Practitioner Act or under any other acts related to medical practice which may avoid the risks of the patents. 

WHY IS REGISTRATION IMPORTANT? 

Registration is like a license to practice medicine. It ensures that doctors have the necessary qualifications and training to provide quality care. When doctors don’t register, it’s like driving a car without a license-it’s illegal and can be dangerous. Registration is done by the prescribed act and under the surveillance of The Government which gives a surety to the public about the knowledge of the doctor they are visiting for their problems.

WHAT’S THE TAKEAWAY?  

     This case shows that the legal system is committed to ensuring that medical professionals follow the rules. It’s a reminder that healthcare is not just about treating patients, but also about being accountable for one’s actions. By prioritizing transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct, we can build trust in the healthcare system and ensure better outcomes for patients.