LI Network
Published on: 28 September 2023 at 15:10 IST
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an appellant cannot be granted a registration certificate as he failed to specify the regulatory body governing his medical specialization.
The court dismissed the appeal challenging the Trial Court’s order, which upheld the rejection of the appellant’s application for registration under Section 5 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (the Act). The court emphasized the essential role of a regulatory body in overseeing and regulating medical professionals to safeguard public health.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, underscored the importance of maintaining professional standards in the medical field. It noted that professionals, particularly medical practitioners, strive to uphold high standards of conduct and character that go beyond ordinary morality.
The court observed, “Professionals in general and the Medical Practitioners in particular do aspire to an ideal defining a standard of good conduct, virtuous character and a commitment to excel beyond the norm of morality ordinarily governing relations among ordinary persons.”
The appellant had approached the court through an Intra-Court Writ Appeal after the Trial Court dismissed his writ petition challenging the rejection of his registration application under the Act.
The crucial point of contention was the appellant’s inability to specify which regulatory body governed his medical profession.
The court pointed out that the Medical Council of India regulates medical practitioners in the Allopathy branch of science, while AYUSH practitioners (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy) have their own regulatory bodies.
The court stressed the importance of protecting public health, safety, and well-being, as well as maintaining confidence in the medical profession and upholding professional standards. It concluded that the appellant’s lack of clarity regarding his regulatory affiliation warranted the rejection of his registration application.
The bench stated, “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.”
In light of these considerations and the appellant’s inability to specify the relevant regulatory body, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Dr. Mohan Bhatta M R v State of Karnataka