High Court Warns Against Unqualified Medical Practices: 'Time to Pull the Curtain Down'

The Karnataka High Court has issued a stern warning against unqualified individuals engaging in medical services, particularly in rural areas, emphasizing the need to protect vulnerable populations. Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while dismissing a plea by a paramedical practitioner seeking registration for his medical clinic.

Expressing surprise, the Court noted that the petitioner had been referring to himself as a practicing "doctor" for years despite holding only a Community Medical Service and Essential Drugs (CMS-ED) diploma. The Court, in response, commented on the necessity to halt the trend of unqualified individuals providing medical services.

"It is rather strange as to how the petitioner addresses himself as a practicing doctor for all these years. Time has come to pull the curtain down on such people who are practicing medicine without qualification and hoodwinking poor people in rural areas," stated the Court.

The petitioner's plea arose after Karnataka State authorities refused to grant registration for his medical clinic under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007.

The petitioner, claiming to have pursued para-medical studies and practiced as a doctor for several years, informed the Court about completing a CMS-ED paramedical course in Delhi, certified by the Central Board of Paramedical Education, Mumbai, under World Health Organization guidelines.

Despite this, the Court, upon reviewing records, emphasized that the petitioner's para-medical qualification did not entitle him to be recognized as a "private medical practitioner" or a "doctor" under the 2007 Act. Consequently, he was not entitled to registration under the Act.

"He is a paramedical practitioner. Being a paramedical practitioner, he is not entitled to any registration under the Act, which is sine qua non for the continuation of practice as a medical practitioner. He is not a doctor as defined under the Act. He is also not one of those practitioners as defined under the Act," clarified the Court.

Expressing concern, the Court highlighted that, without the necessary qualifications, the petitioner had allegedly "practiced for ages" and may have even prescribed medicines. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News Writer, MIT ADT University