Homeopathic Surgeon Association of India vs. Union of India
Name (of case): Homeopathic Surgeon Association Of India v. Union of India
Citation (eq): 2017 2 ALJ 625, AIR 2017 ALL 105
Year of the case: 2017
Appellant: Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, Advocates.
Respondent: C.S.C., A.S.G.I.
Judges/ bench: Justice V.K. Shukla & Mrs. Justice Sangeeta Chandra
Acts of involved: The Drug and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Section 2 (ee); The Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970
The article aims to offer the readers a quick idea about how the Medical Association works and about its practitioners. The judgement explained here will demonstrate the permissions and limits of the practitioners of varied Medical fields. The article talks about sections of The Drug and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, The Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 and lots of others.
This case “Homeopathic Surgeon Association of India V Union of India” is said to the permissions granted to medical practitioners to practice other fields of it or not. A medical man consistent with The Indian Medical Degrees Act,1916 may be a person, registered during a medical register of a State.
1. the difficulty raised was whether the Pharmacological course within the Governmental Colleges affiliated with Uttar Pradesh allowed taking Pharmacology courses.
The petitioners prayed before the Court the following:
1. To issue, or order, or give direction within the Writ of Certiorari and quash the order given on 28/11/2016.
2. To issue, or order, or give direction within the Writ of Mandamus, and order the respondents to enable the initiation of the “Pharmacology Course” in Government Colleges in order that the petitioner association can get Pharmacology course.
Mandamus may be a writ. Mandamus may be a Latin term which suggests “We command”. In simple terms, it's an order from the Supreme Court or supreme court to any inferior court or the other authority to try to or perform the assigned duty commanded by them. it's like an awakening call from authority.
Certiorari is another of the five writs granted. It means “to be certified”. It also means “to be fully informed”. The writ are often gone by The Supreme Court or supreme court for quashing any order gone by the other inferior court or tribunal. It orders the lower courts to point out the records during a case in order that the upper court can review it.
The acts and provisions taken under consideration are:
1. The Drug and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Section 2 (ee): Section 2(ee) of the Act provision talks about the “registered medical practitioners”. the supply describes who may be a medical man , like who has qualification granted under Section 3 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916, or under the schedules of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
2. The Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970
The act provides for the Constitution of a central council of Indian Medicine and therefore the importance of a central Register of medicines and its related matters.
3. Section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956
Section 2 of the talks about the definition of “Indian Medical Register”. The subsections, Section 2(d), 2(f), 2(h), 2(k) talks about the drugs , its qualification, and state medical register.
4. Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956
Section 11 enumerates medical qualifications granted by any university or medical institute.
1. Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel ,1996
In this case, there was a registered practitioner under Bombay Homeopathic and Biochemic practitioner Act, 1959 who wished to practice modern medicine. during this Supreme court judgment, it had been held that the practitioner wasn't qualified to try to to so, i.e., to practice Allopathy. Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956 is taken because the relevant provision here.
2. Dr Mukhtiar Chand et al. v. State of Punjab et al. , 1998
In this case, the question raised was whether a medical man practising Indian Medicine be allowed to practice Modern Medicine On the provisions of medicine and Cosmetics Rules 1945. The court said that it's impossible .
3. State of Haryana v. Phool Singh,1998
In this case the Drug and Cosmetics Rules,1945, viewed in its widest concept. The respondents came within the purview of Allopathic Medicines, therefore the court dismissed the appeal.
4. D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P.,2000
The case was regarding the practice of the Allopathic branch of drugs . The court repeatedly and strict quoted –
“(i) All district Magistrates and therefore the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to spot , within a deadline to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified/unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately;
(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity of the names of such unqualified/unregistered medical practitioners in order that people don't approach such persons for medical treatment.”
5. Mumbai v State of Maharashtra, 2009
The Apex court examined the problems and arguments presented and said-
1. The Court took into consideration the choice given within the case of Poonam Varma v. Ashwin Patel, that the practitioner isn't qualified to practice Allopathy and had entered into the prohibited area of it. a number of the extracts are:
The provision provided within the judgement said that a person cannot practice medicine if he has the qualification for an equivalent and he's enrolled as a medical man on state medical register.
2. Right to practice is allowed as long as the practitioner gets registered if he/she is qualified for an equivalent . The court made it very clear that a practitioner who has studied a system of drugs are going to be allowed to offer the patient drugs of the other system and treat them. Further, the court took the reference of the judgement given within the case of Dr Mukhtiar Chand et al. v. State of Punjab et al. , 1998 and said-
Central Council, consistent with Section 2(e) (1) of IMCC Act, 1970, resolved that in modern medicine time, modern scientists have made drugs which are used under various branches.
3. The Apex Court decided that the petitioners can't be granted permission to start out the Pharmacological course within the Governmental Colleges.
4. Therefore, the prayer by the petitioner, the writ petition filed is dismissed.
1. Adv. Deepak Kr. Jaiswal and Advocate Santosh Singh Paliwal argued that now large scale discharge of duties by the Medical practitioners and bridge course of Pharmacology, also, certificate course for contemporary Pharmacology for registered Practitioners has been haunted by the govt of state of Maharashtra, so same are often made up by the state of Uttar Pradesh .
2. The Principal Secretary, Medical Education (Ayush) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, UP, has looked into the matter and said that within the state of UP concerning the various field of medicines, with different registered doctors in their field are entitled to hold out their practice in their field, so one branch of individuals can't be allowed to practice another branch and such prayer can't be taken into.
3. The learned counsel representing the respondents, Union of India and therefore the State of UP was of an equivalent deem of the Principal Secretary, Medical Education (Ayush) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, UP, argued and stated that within the state each branch, who are practising medicine has their board and one member of 1 board can't be allowed to practice in another board and about permission, it depends and it's the priority of the policymakers as what to try to to . The concerned government of UP isn't prepared to require up the course because it is by the govt of Maharashtra.
4. The petitioner contrary to the view within the case of Dr Mukhtiar Chand et al. v. State of Punjab et al. , 1998, relied on the judgement given within the case of State of Haryana v. Phool Singh,1998.