PCPNDT ACT

"It's not an offense under the PCPNDT Act, if the computer generated reports are signed by the owner of the Hospital and not by the concerned Sonologist/ Radiologist"" - Hon. Bombay High Court "The Court can take cognizance of complaint under PCPNDT Act, only if it is filed by the duly appointed AA" The Hon. Bombay High Court ( Justice Smt. Anuja Prabhudesai) in its recent judgment in the case of Dr. Rajender Sujanyal & Dr. Shripad Inamdar V/s. State of Maharashtra, (W.P. No.4310/2015, Criminal), has given huge relief to Doctors against the highanded action of AA. Facts : 1. This case is from PCMC, Pune. The Petitioner No.1 is the Gynaecologist runs a “Stree Hospital”, with licensed Ultrasound sonography machines. Petitioner No.2 is the visiting qualified radiologist / sonologist in the said Hospital. 2. The Commissioner of PCMC, who is otherwise, AA, delegated his powers of Inspection, Search, Seizures and sealing of record and machines etc...

Competent Authority directed to de-seal and return the Sonography machines for want of proper & Valid order as envisaged under PCPNDT Act provisions ".... The Hon. Bombay High Court in its recently reported judgement of Janki Ultra Sound Centre V/S. Approximately. Authority under PCPNDT act ( 2015 (6) Mh.L.J. 886 ) W.P.No.1 of  2015  passed the above order. The factual Matrix is as under :  The Petitioner establishment is operated by Dr. Deelip Patil, a registered practitioner and having certificate under PCPNDT Act. In a visit on 13-08-2014, the appropriate authority after inspection of records, seized the machines. This action was impugned before High Court. It was contended that there were no allegations of sex determination also. The Authority contended that, their action is legal and the machine was sealed as the authority has "Reason to believe" that it may furnish evidence of offence under PCPNDT Act and further to prevent repetitive offence. The Hon...

Much required unique relief for Doctors in PCPNDT - The General Surgeon who was using Sonography Machine for diagnostic purpose received Rs.10,000/- ( though may be very less) from Appropriate authority for Illegal Sealing of Sonography Machines, by Division bench of Bombay High Court. (   Harishchandra  Madhavrao  Wange  vs The State Of Maharashtra & ors, Hon. bombay High Court, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11217 OF 2014, decided on 09/06/2016) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155725829/ Facts : 1. The Appropriate Authority when visited the Petitioner's Clinic found that the room where the ultrasound Sonography machine was kept, was not put under lock and key. A show cause notice was also sent, but without waiting for receipt of explanation from the petitioner, proceeded to draw a panchanama and attached and sealed the machine. 2. The explanation given by the Petitioner that he uses the machine for diagnosis of cases for surgical purpose and does no...

“Filling of ‘F’ forms is a clerical work to be done by Clinic and not by a Radiologist” – Bombay High Court The Bombay High Court came to the rescue of Radiologists by ruling that it is not the duty of a radiologist to maintain details in Form  F. It is pure clerical work which is required to be done by the clinic, and the doctor can’t be prosecuted for non-maintenance of details in the form, the court observed while quashing a criminal complaint against two radiologists from Pune. (CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 4194 OF 2014 Dr. Ranjeet Ghatge V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ) Justice M.L. Tahilyani, in his nine-page order while quashing the prosecution initiated against Dr Ranjeet Ghatge and Dr Sanjay Kadyan, who were charged under section 25 and rule 9 (4) of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, observed “In my opinion, they cannot be prosecuted for not maintaining particular record, which is required to be maintained by the genetic clinic.” The judge, after examini...

" The omissions of a nature not to mention the mobile number of the patient, full address of the patient with mobile number, difference in signature of the Doctor & other inadvertent mistakes cannot be termed as a discrepancy or act of inaccuracy amounting to violation of provisions of the PCPNDT Ac t " Facts in nutshell. 1. In Feb-2015, when the Vigilance Squad inspected the Ultrasonography Center, it was found that the 32 year old PEtitioner, who recently started her Clinic, was not maintaining the F Form (which has become the "F" word for Doctors ) properly and what were the main alleged lacunas ? look.. a) Serial No. is not given to F Form, b) Signatures of Doctor and patient differed than Consent form C) Not mentioning the Mobile No. of patient. d) No detailed address some of the patient mentioned.. e) referral slip was not found in respect of one pregnant woman.. f) 9-1 register was not available in the Center. h) F Forms for total 2 mon...

The Action under PCPNDT Act was quashed, which was based on mere guess work and conjecture of the AA ! https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51582652/ The Hon. Bombay Hi gh Court has again came to the rescue of Drs in its comparatively recent judgment dated 27/09/2016, in the case of Dr. Ashishkumar Wagh V/s. state of Maharashtra., CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1641 and 2234 OF 2015 Facts :  1. The Petitioner Dr challenged the order of confirming framing of Charge by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. 2. The main Allegations against the Petitioner were : a) F Form was not filled properly. b) Consent of women was not obtained properly. c) Surnames of 2 patients were wrongly mentioned. d) The petitioner did not obtain consent of one of the patient before performing Trans Vaginal Sonography (TVS) IMP : Filling up of Gorm G is not mandatory.. 3.During the course of arguments, respondent No.1 competent authority has filed additional short affidavit and admitted the legal position...

" The Machine which is registered under the  PCPNDT  Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered"  In its recently reported judgment of Dr. Deepak Sane V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2017(1) Mh.L.J.379, W.P. no.2995/2015, The Division Bench Of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has held so.. Facts in short : 1. The petitioner is the leading Medical Practitioner in Nagpur and dealing exclusively with Heart Treatment. He is required to use the 2D Echo Colour Doppler Machine for Treating his patients and for treating the patients he requires to visit the ICCU at different Hospitals. 2. IT was the case of the petitioner that he needy patients who cannot come to his clinic, for them he has to carry his 2D Echo machine, which is duly registered under the provisions of  PCPNDT  Act.Therefore he applied to the concerned authorities for getting permission to move the said machine at different places, but same was rejected and hence the matter came...

" Mandate of Installation Active Tracker device in Sonography machines nullified, as it proved to be totally ineffective in getting expected results :.    Hon. M.P. High Court. In its recent judgment dated 18/01/2017, o n bunch of Writ Petitions, the Hon. M.P. High Court has delivered the common verdict.. Needless to mention that its Binding effect will be limited to that State only. http://www.mphc.gov.in/…/WP_11247_2015_FinalOrder_18-Jan-20… Facts and Background : 1. In order to curb the menace of illegal sex determination, the devices like active tracker or silent observers have been required to be installed by the various State Government. 2. In M.P., various Writ Petitions were filed by doctors whereby the order of Govt. interalia praying therein for quashing of directing compulsory installation of Active Tracker to sonography machines or in the alternative direct to the State Govt to bear all the expenses for installing the same. 3. In the meanti...

"Mere omission to sign on "F Form" does not make the Doctor liable for prosecution" . Hon. Bombay High Court. The recent judgment of Hon. Bombay High Court, providing much needed relief. Case details : Dr. Udaysingh Mansingh Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra, Cri.Appln. No. 2574/2014, Aurangabad Bench, decided on 08-12-2016, recently reported in 2017(2) Mh.L.J.232. Facts in Short :. 1.The Appellant Doctor challenged the order of framing of charges by Ld. J.M F.C., Jalgaon, under  PCPNDT  Act, on the complaint filed by AA. 2. At the time of visit of AA to the clinic of the Petitioner, it was alleged that the deficiencies relating to Non signing on few F forms were found. Some F forms were missing the signatures of the pregnant women and in some forms details of living children of the patient were missing. Hence the complaint was filed and the Ld. JMFC framed the charges Held : 1. His Lordship Hon. Z.A. Haq J. , observed it is to be ways seen that whet...