2003 (2) TMI 519 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to treat common diseases.
2. Right to issue prescriptions and certificates.
3. Registration in the State Medical Register.
4. Compliance with legal notifications and statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Treat Common Diseases:
The appellants, who completed the diploma course in Community Medical Service from recognized institutions in West Bengal, were initially granted the right to treat common diseases among the rural population by the Notification dated October 15, 1980. This included the treatment of communicable diseases, malnutritional states, snake bites, and insecticidal poisoning. The High Court affirmed this right, stating that the change in the diploma's nomenclature would not affect the appellants' ability to perform their duties as specified in the regulations.

2. Right to Issue Prescriptions and Certificates:
The appellants challenged the denial of their right to issue prescriptions and certificates of sickness or death, which was taken away by a subsequent notification. The Supreme Court held that the right to issue prescriptions or certificates is inherently linked to the right to treat. Citing Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized that prescribing a drug is a concomitant right to practicing a system of medicine. Therefore, the right to issue prescriptions or certificates cannot be separated from the right to treat.

3. Registration in the State Medical Register:
The appellants sought to have their names entered in the State Medical Register based on a 1915 Notification and the Bengal Medical Act, 1914. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court initially denied this, relying on A.K Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala, which required a recognized medical qualification for registration. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Dr. Mukhtiar Chand, clarified that the appellants could be registered in the State Medical Register even without a recognized medical qualification. The Court held that the State Medical Register could include practitioners based on qualifications prescribed by state laws, thereby allowing the appellants' registration.

4. Compliance with Legal Notifications and Statutory Provisions:
The Supreme Court noted that the respondents did not dispute the validity of the original Notification dated October 15, 1980, which granted the appellants the right to treat. The Court directed the respondents to comply with this notification and make necessary arrangements to include the names of the diploma holders in the State Medical Register within six months. The Court emphasized that the right to treat, along with the right to issue prescriptions and certificates, must be protected in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the learned Single Judge's decision, thereby affirming the appellants' right to treat, issue prescriptions, and certificates. The respondents were directed to register the appellants in the State Medical Register for the specified purposes within six months. The appeal was allowed, ensuring the appellants' rights were comprehensively protected under the law.