Karnataka High Court Refuses To Issue Direction For Registration Of Post Graduate In Alternative Medicines Citing Absence Of Regulatory Body
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a single bench order rejecting the petition filed by one Dr Mohan Bhatta M R, who holds a PG Degree from Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, seeking registration certificate to practise under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007. While doing so, a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice...
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a single bench order rejecting the petition filed by one Dr Mohan Bhatta M R, who holds a PG Degree from Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, seeking registration certificate to practise under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007.
While doing so, a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit remarked, “The protection of the Public includes not only matters relating to the health, safety and wellbeing of the public but also the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession and the maintenance of proper professional standards & conduct.”
It was argued by the appellant that his discipline does not fall under the Department of AYUSH. However, he is entitled to practice in the branch of his specialisation. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman of the Registration Committee ought to have granted registration for facilitating the avocation. The appeal was opposed by the State government.
The bench went through the records and noted that the requirement of Certificate of Registration issued by the State Medical Council is sine qua non under the provisions of Section 6 of the 2007 Act and Rule 5 (IX) (b) of the KPME Rules.
Further it said that petitioner was unable to show he is subject to which regulatory body of his profession as a Doctor. For the medical practitioners who fall under Alopathy Branch of Science, there is a regulatory body namely the Medical Council of India; similarly, there are statutory regulatory bodies for practitioners of AYUSH namely, Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha & Homeopathy.
In this backdrop it observed, “It needs no research to know the possible ill-consequences on public health, should persons who profess medical avocation be not disciplined by a Regulatory Body, whatever be its nomenclature.”
Following which it held “The impugned order inarticulately is animated with this view and therefore, does not call for our interference. In the above circumstances, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.”
Court clarified that its order shall come in the way of Appellant seeking registration after complying all the requisites of law, afresh.
Appearance: Advocate Govindaraju K for Appellant.
AGA Niloufer Akbar for Respondents.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
Case Title: Dr Mohan Bhatta M R And State of Karnataka & Others
Case NO: Writ Appeal No 478 of 2023.