National Medical Commission Not Expected To Assess Different Institutions On Different Yardsticks Based On Arbitrary Grounds: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that an apex body like National Medical Commission is not expected to assess different institutions on different yardsticks, based on grounds that seem wholly arbitrary.

“The NMC is entrusted with the functions and duties conferred under the provisions of the NMC Act, 2019. The NMC and all autonomous Boards constituted under the NMC Act, 2019 discharge public function. The action of statutory bodies must conform to the norms and standards stipulated therein and are to be uniformly made applicable to all the institutions. Their action must necessarily be reasonable and free from any prejudice,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed.

The court made the observations while dealing with a plea moved by Nova Educational Society that applied to the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for grant of approval for a new medical college with 150 seats for the Academic Year 2023-24. Upon noting certain deficiencies, the society was served with a provisional disapproval letter.

While the society claimed to have sent the reply via email to MARB, its application was rejected on the ground that certain deficiencies were noted which remained unanswered and in absence of any reply from the society, the approval for setting up the medical college could not be granted.

The first appeal was dismissed on the ground that under Section 28(5) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the appeal should have been filed within 15 days from the date of order of disapproval. Second appeal was also rejected which the society challenged in this petition.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appearing for the petitioner-society highlighted examples of cases where despite deficiencies, other institutions were granted approvals. It was submitted that the MARB, being a statutory authority, cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily, unreasonably and to the disadvantage of genuine institutions.

Pulling up the NMC, Justice Kaurav said that once the Commission, in its counter affidavit, took a categorical stand that the institutions which are deficient are not entitled to be re-inspected, the same principles have to be applied uniformly to all institutions.

“In the instant case, when NMC had taken a stand in its counter affidavit that in view of the Regulation position as referred to hereinabove, the notice for rectification of deficiency was not required, NMC was expected to have placed on record, the information with respect to the notices which have been issued to the other institutions having the same or higher level of deficiency,” the court said.

It added the fact that the court was misled due to the lack of disclosure of information by the NMC showed that the Commission is completely lacking in its bonafide in taking a stand.

While deferring action against the NMC officials for the time being subject to further hearing, the court passed an interim order directing examination of the rectification or clarification submitted by the petitioner-society by conducting an inspection of the institution.

“The MARB on the basis of the inspection is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, either to grant the permission or to reject the same,” the court said while listing the matter for hearing on September 20.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh and Advocates Kumar Shashank, Ramesh, Nivesh Kumar, Aviral Kapoor, Piyush and Nitish Rai appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: NOVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 734

Click Here To Read Order