When Hon. Bombay High Court quashed the illegal action of MMC which refrained a Doctor from using sonography machine.

When Hon. Bombay High Court quashed the illegal action of MMC which refrained a Doctor from using sonography machine. The action was held to be unlawful as it was beyond the procedure prescribed by Law.

Some past judgements are also very helpful at times. 
In the case of Dr. Megha Topale v/s. Navi Mumbai Corpn. & ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 11731/2013, (d.o.j-28.07.14) Division Bench of Hon. Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside as rightly observed as the "drastic action" taken by the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC)

The Petitioner is a #radiologist. A criminal action was taken against her for some irregularities/discrepancies, under  PCPNDT Act and a charge was framed.

 Thus the MMC issued a 3 pointer letter to petitioner thereby .. 
1) warning petitioner for keeping the dignity of Medical Profession, 
2) she was directed to refrain from using ultra sound / Sonography practice. &
3) an endorsement to that effect to be made in the register.

The Hon. High court quashed the said letter by holding the same as bad in law. 
It observed the principle of a law that 
"If anything is required  to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in same way or not to be done at all". 
The MMC without holding mandatory enquiry as per law issued the warning and the criminal charge was also not yet proved. The MMC further, without suspending registration of Petitioner, refrained her from using sonography machine, which Hon. Court observed as the action taken without any authority. As point no 1-2  of the letter were held as bad in law, H.C. rightly also struck down the 3rd point which directed to endorse action as per point no. 1 & 2 in the register. Howe'er it was clarified that the Criminal action will be decided on its own merits.

Still its a ray of good hope for Drs as high handed action of your parent body has been struck down by Court.

Thanks and Regds. 

Adv. Rohit Erande.
Pune. ©

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

#PCPNDT - Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE  © Case Details :  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2020 Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal V/s. State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Facts in short : 1. The  Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Sirsa, Haryana-respondent No.2; order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the State Appropriate Authority, PNDT, Panchkula-respondent No.4 and order dated 11/14.01.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana-cum-State Appellate Authority, Health Department, on the ground that the request of the petitioner for renewal of registration under the PC & PNDT Rules, 1996 has been declined merely because of the pendency of a criminal case against ...
Read more

PCPNDT Act : Can USG be performed by even by MBBS after 6 months training ? : What are the effects of Hon. Supreme Court's order..

"Prima facie the judgment of the Delhi High Court has trenched upon an area of legislative policy"  The 3 judges bench of Hon. Supreme Court observed this while staying the judgment of  Hon. Delhi High Court. Hon. Delhi High Court .  Case details : Union of India V/s. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association of India & ors. SLP. Nos. 166657-59 of 2016. Interim Order dated :14th March, 2018 by the three judges Bench. Coram : Hon. Dipak Misra (the then Hon.C.J.I.), Hon. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon. A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ. Order Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/20683/20683_2016_Judgement_14-Mar-2018.pdf Facts in Short : 1. The Hon. Supreme Court was dealing with 2 sets of Petitions with 2 main questions. i.e. the Strict implementation of PCPNDT Act and the later petitions were relating to the challenge of Judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court in relation to 6 months training rule. 2. In first part of the Judgment Hon. Apex Co...
Read more

" The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. ©

 " The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. © In short, One Machine - One Place - One Registration. 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 at Nagpur 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 sa...
Read more