Supreme Relief - It's not an offense under the PCPNDT Act, if the computer generated reports like 'F Forms' are signed by the owner of the Hospital, instead of the concerned Sonologist/ Radiologist" - Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

"It's not an offense under the PCPNDT Act, if the computer generated reports like 'F Forms' are signed by the owner of the Hospital, instead of   the concerned Sonologist/ Radiologist" - Hon. Supreme Court.

But,

"Rightful delegation of Power to AA was upheld"

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

Case Details :

APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PCPNDT ACT, PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION , Maharashtra V/s. DR. RAJENDER AMIRCHAND SUJANYAL & ORS

Criminal Appeal No.38/2022. 

Judgment Link

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/8209/8209_2017_44_10_32365_Order_06-Jan-2022.pdf

Facts in Short :

1. This case is from PCMC, Pune. The Appellant challnged the Order of Hon. Bombay High Court.  The Original 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. under PCPNDT Act to one Dr. Gophane & other Medical Officers.

3. On 21.6.2012, Dr. Gophane inspected the sonography center of Petitioner No.1. In the report it was mentioned that there were no violations of PCPNDT Provisions, all the records were properly maintained. Only objection which was raised was Case card signed by Hospital owner not by sonologist.

4. Thereafter Dr. Gofane and the respondent No.3, Dr. Anandrao Jagdale, visited Stree Hospital on 17th July, 2012. & sealed the ultrasound machine. They gave show cause notice to which the doctors gave proper reply, but same was not considered and subsequently criminal complaints were filed. As the Doctors did not get any reliefs in Trial Court, they approached the high Court.

5. Hon. Bombay High Court Held that :

a. AA is appointed by due notification either by State Govt. or Central Govt. and the Court upheld the contention that in present case the Respondent No.3 was not AA , as not appointed so and thus he had no authority in law to take any action against Doctors. It was also proved that the Res. no.3 was not even a Medical Director as alleged.

b. It also upheld the contentions of the Petitioners that there were no discrepancies in maintaining record. Rather the Report of Dr. Gopahne was also in fact in favour of the Doctors.

c. The Hon. Court also accepted the contentions raised by the original Petitioners that that the hand written sonography reports are signed by the Petitioner No.2 Sonologist and that the contents of the hand written report are subsequently entered in the computer and for the sake of convenience, the computer generated printouts are signed by the Petitioner No.1, the owner of the Hospital. It further observed that signing of report by the owner of the Hospital and not by the sonologist does not amount to breach of any ofthe provisions of PCPNDT Act.

5. the Hon. Court also cautioned the AA about causal approach in sealing of Machines and held that the object of the Act can only be achieved when the powers under the Act are exercised judiciously, with due application of mind and in accordance with law. it relied on the another Division Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court, in the case of Dr. Sai Shiradkar V/s. State of Maharashtra,( Criminal Writ Petition No.1381 of 2015), wherein it was observed that, ".....Mistakes committed without any criminal intent and merely in the nature of procedural lapses needs to be properly understood before taking drastic action of initiating criminal prosecution against a person in the field of Medical profession"

Held by Hon. Supreme Court :

1. After hearing of the parties on merits at length, their Lordships Hon. DINESH MAHESHWARI  & Hon. VIKRAM NATH JJ dismissed the Appeal filed by AA and upheld the Judgment of Hon. Bombay High Court except but one finding of Bombay High court that AA had no authority to delegate. 

2.  Their Lordships observed that in view of the notification dated 09/07/2012, the Commissioner of PCMC was right in appointing Dr. Jagdale as the AA under the PCPNDT Act, as there was vacancy of Medical Officer of Health as for want of sanction from the State Gove. and as at relevant time, the then Medical Director was about to retire due to superannuation and thus there was dire need of delegating charge of both the offices - Medical Officer of Health and Medical Director to some other Office and therefore the Commissioner had to assign both the charge to one Dr. Jagdale, the Medical Superintendent of YCM Hospital. 

Excepting this issue, all the issues decided by High Court have been confirmed in favour of Doctors. 

Important Judgment at the beginning of the year ! 

The times has also come to introspect and see whether real intent of PCNDT Act has been achieved and if not then who are the real culprits ?

The doctors who act against the spirit of  PCPNDT Act or those people who do sex determination, must be punished and have been punished. However, by doing so, all the Doctors and cases under the said Act should not be judged by same scale. If Such illegal action is not stopped, such the Halter round the neck of doctors will make them fearful and apprehensive of taking professional decisions and ultimately it will be the loss the society.  

Thanks and Regards

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