While the news about a patient’s life being lost at the hands of a negligent Doctor shall always send ripples of disgust amongst the general public due to the fact that the people repose their faith in the medical professionals, the nurses, the clinics and the hospitals which they are bound to rely upon at some point in their lifespan either to save their own lives or the lives of their family members.
And while death is the inevitable truth of life, modern lifestyles have prompted reliance upon medical science from the cradle to the grave.
But where does this hope get diluted when a medical professional commits an error in surgery that is so negligent that not even the conditional pardon by the ethics and disciplinary committee of a State Medical Council would not be able to offset the immense guilt which remains tied up to the conscience of the errant medical professional throughout the course of his medical practice.
Even more so, to what abysmal level do the ethics of the medical profession unfortunately traverse into when a private Hospital decides to procure the services of a Medical Practitioner who obtained his Medical Degree in Pokhara, Nepal.
While the hospital proudly boasts of two decades of service to the people of Goa, in the mind of a common man of general prudence, it is presumable that Corporate Greed may have stifled the objectivity and conscientious judgment of the Hospital Management’s top brass.
While it is no secret that a profit motive drives the endeavours of any Private Hospital, at what cost would be justified to engage a Surgeon who did not possess the requisite and mandatory registration before the State’s Medical Council before beginning to conduct elaborate surgeries upon unsuspecting patients who were unaware of this crucial detail.
From a jurisprudential perspective, would the Private Hospital not be vicariously liable for engaging the services of a medical professional who does possess the requisite registration before the Medical Council in the State in whose territorial jurisdiction the Private Hospital is located.
By implied imputation of the law, even the Consent Forms on which the signatures have been obtained of the patients and their relatives would be a nullity ab initio in the absence of the said registration of the medical professional before the respective State Medical Council.
The rationale for this legal reasoning would be in consonance with the intention of legislature when they had drafted sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the erstwhile Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
"No person shall practice medicine in any State unless he or she possesses a recognised medical qualification and is registered with the State Medical Council of that State."
Consequently, the sub-Section 21 (1) had mandated that only registered practitioners could legally practice medicine, after having ensured that they had met the necessary qualifications.
Further, sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the erstwhile Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, had envisaged:
"Every State Medical Council shall maintain a register of medical practitioners who have been granted registration under this Act."
Incidentally, this sub-Section 23 (1) emphasised the requirement for maintaining a register of medical practitioners by the relevant State Medical Council in the territorial jurisdiction, and this would be essential for regulatory oversight and public accountability.
Presently, it is the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, 2019, which supersedes the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, by establishing a new regulatory framework for medical education and practice in India.
It can be safely presumed that the NMC Act, 2019 has increased the Central Government’s oversight over medical education and practice, aiming to reduce malpractices and improve the quality of healthcare services.
Concurrently, Section 34 of the NMC Act, 2019 has been aptly titled: Bar to practice:
“34. (1) No person other than a person who is enrolled in the State Register or the National Register, as the case may be, shall”
(a) be allowed to practice medicine as a qualified medical practitioner;
(b) hold office as a physician or surgeon or any other office, by whatever name called, which is meant to be held by a physician or surgeon;
(c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner…” (NMC Act, 2019).
In K.K. Verma v. State of M.P., (2000) 6 SCC 448, the Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of registration for practicing medicine and highlighted the consequences of practicing without registration. The Court noted that practicing without proper registration undermines the statutory requirements and regulatory framework established to safeguard public health.
Implications of non-registration:
â— Registration ensures that practitioners are qualified and have met the standards set by the Medical Council. Unregistered practice can compromise public safety if the practitioner is not adequately qualified or if their professional conduct is unregulated.
â— Registration is a mark of professional integrity and adherence to ethical standards. Practicing without registration undermines the trust and standards expected in the medical profession, affecting the credibility of the healthcare system.
Therefore, a medical practitioner who does not possess the requisite registration before the State Medical Council and yet continues to practice without registration amounts to an illegal act and could result in legal penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment.
Even the grant of retroactive registration to the medical practitioner by the State Medical Council while allowing the medical practitioner to continue practicing could be seen as condoning the illegal conduct.
Moreover, such negligent behaviour undermines the trust and standards expected of the medical profession, thus affecting the credibility of the healthcare system.
