Superintendent In Medical Institution Cannot Hold Additional Charge Of Head Of Department: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Medical Superintendent of an Autonomous Medical Institution cannot be given an additional charge of Head of Department.A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr. Sridhara S and quashed the official memorandum issued by the Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences appointing Dr. T.D. Thimmappa as an...
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Medical Superintendent of an Autonomous Medical Institution cannot be given an additional charge of Head of Department.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr. Sridhara S and quashed the official memorandum issued by the Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences appointing Dr. T.D. Thimmappa as an in-charge HOD as illegal and quashed the same.
Further, it directed that respondent No.3 shall refrain from assuming additional clinical responsibilities such as serving as an HOD of the ENT Department contrary to NMC norms. The institution was directed to comply with NMC norms regarding the separation of administrative and clinical roles within respondent No.1-Institution.
As per the petitioner under the Official Memorandum dated 31.01.2024 issued by the institution, respondent No.3 was appointed as in-charge Head of Department (HOD) of the ENT Department, Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences.
Further it was said that Dr Thimmappa was already holding the post of Medical Superintendent and cannot occupy the position of Head of Department in terms of 3.7 Regulation of National Medical Commission (NMC).
It was claimed the assignment of dual roles raises significant concerns regarding potential conflict of interest, compromised patient care and diminished educational opportunities for students.
Referring to regulation 3.7, the court said that the Medical superintendent cannot be Head of Department of a clinical department. It added that the very object of laying an embargo against dual roles is intended to avoid conflict of interest.
It stated that the role of a Medical Superintendent involves administrative responsibilities, overseeing the overall functioning of the Hospital and ensuring compliance with Regulations and having respondent No.3 as both an Administrator and Head of Clinical Department could compromise the impartiality and effectiveness of decision-making in both the areas.
Court also noted that the role of Medical Superintendent in the Hospital involved administrative duties such as managing budgets, staffing, facilities and ensuring compliance with regulations and policies and for the smooth operation of the Hospital as a whole focusing on aspects like infrastructure, finance and overall organisational efficiency.
It observed that the Head of the Department in the Clinical Departments such as Surgery, Medicine, Pediatric, ENT, is responsible for overseeing the medical and clinical aspects of that specific department. This includes supervising medical staff, ensuring quality patient care, setting departmental policies and participating in clinical decision-making.
The court said “Therefore, the very object of Regulation 3.7 is intended to see that the same person cannot serve both as Medical Superintendent and HOD of the clinical department. The above said regulation is also intended to have two separate channels for administrative actions and clinical focus.”
"The Medical Superintendent's primary focus is on administrative tasks while HOD focuses on clinical matters within their specific department. Balancing both roles effectively can be challenging as they require different skill sets and priorities. If the same person holds both the posts, a conflict may arise while making decisions that affect both the Hospital as a whole and a specific clinical department,” it added.
The court also highlighted that the dual role of Medical Superintendent and Head of Department can potentially affect students in various ways. If HOD is also responsible for administrative duties as a Medical Superintendent, it may detract from his ability to focus on educational responsibilities within the Department, it said.
Court rejected the contention of the institution that the position of Medical Superintendent is not sanctioned and thus it was justified to allow the Medical Superintendent to hold the post of HOD contrary to 3.7 Regulations of NMC.
It said that if the position of Medical Superintendent is not officially sanctioned, it does not automatically grant permission for the Medical Superintendent to hold an additional charge of HOD.
Following this it held “The appointment of respondent No.3 who is already holding the post of Medical Superintendent as HOD of ENT is null and void as it violates Regulation 3.7 of NMC Regulations. The Institute is instructed to rectify this violation immediately by appointing a qualified individual with requisite expertise and experience as the Head of the Department of ENT.”
Accordingly, it allowed the plea and quashed the memorandum.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Arun Shyam for Advocate Suyog Herele E for Petitioner.
Advocate S.B.Totad for R1 & R2.
Advocate Vinayak Keerthi for R3.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Case Title: Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4050 OF 2024