Doctors Issue Medical Certificate Without Examination, Delhi High Court Says Removing Their Name From Medical Council’s Roll Not The Only Leviable Penalty

In a challenge brought against improper issuance of medical certificate by 2 doctors, the Delhi High Court recently held that removing their names from the rolls of Medical Council of India’s register (MCI rolls) was not the only punishment that could be given.

Interpreting Regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, Justice Subramonium Prasad said that removal of a doctor’s name from MCI rolls for issuing improper certificate was only one of the possible punishments, but not the only.

Notably, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner/complainant against Dr. Arati Lalchandani and Dr. Ravi Kumar, former President and Hony. Secretary of Indian Medical Association (IMA), Kanpur respectively.

Reportedly, Dr. Lalchandani and Dr. Kumar had issued a certificate in respect of the petitioner, without examining her. The petitioner’s grievance was that MCI had let the 2 doctors off with only a warning to not issue any opinion letters without seeing patients.

The matter was initially before the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council, which observed that the 2 doctors should not have given their “opinion” on the official letterhead of IMA, Kanpur without examining the patient personally.

The petitioner appealed against UP Medical Council’s order, wherefore Committee of Medical Council of India observed that the 2 doctors’ conduct amounted to professional misconduct and they were guilty of violation of Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.

Put simply, Regulation 7.7 says that any registered medical practitioner who signs/gives an improper certificate is “liable” to have their name deleted from the Register.

Regulation 8.2, on the other hand, says that if a medical practitioner is found guilty of professional misconduct, the appropriate Medical Council may award such punishment as is deemed necessary, or direct removal of the practitioner’s name from the Register (altogether or for a specified period).

After analysing the provisions, as well as the judgments in Sukh Dev v. State of U.P. and State Tax Officer, Investigation Branch-I & Ors. v. Y Balakrishnan, the court held that the punishment prescribed under Regulation 7.7 was not excluded by implication from powers given to the Medical Council under Regulation 8.2.

Finding no merit, the petition was dismissed.

Mr. Trilok Nath Saxena, Mr. Abhinav Saxena and Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Advocates appeared for petitioner

Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Aabhaas Sukhramani, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Anum Hussain, Mr. Bhanu Gulati and Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates appeared for respondent No.1 (Medical Council of India)

Ms. Sugandha Anand and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocates appeared for respondent No.4

Case Title: Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

Click Here To Read/Download Order