PCPNDT ACT

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 ...

Hon. Bombay High Court has given to solace to Doctors against highhanded action of PCPNDT Authorities. Case Details : Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation V/s. M/s. Manjurshree Diagnostic Center Cri. Appl. No. 488/2014, Decided on 25/10/2018 Judgment Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140551668/ Facts in short : 1. The Municipal Corporation filed application against the acquittal of the Respondents by the Trial Court from the offenses under PCPNDT Act. 2. It was contended on behalf of the Corporation in the relevant period about 69 sonographis were performed by the Respondent, however there was no proper record maintained as envisaged under rule 9 of the said Act. Hence they ought not to have been acquitted. 3. Per Contra, it was argued on part of the Respondent that the procedure to seize the documents was itself not legal. Even the Constable who was supposed to be an independent witness was also put outside during the process of search and seizure. The pri...

"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...

The Petitioner Dr. Vijay Verma filed a PIL bearing No.92/2017 and sought certain directions under PCPNDT Act for imposition of Sec.17 and 33 od the said Act. Let's see at the outset what these sections say in nutshell. Section 17 is the section which constitutes the Appropriate Authority (AA), having plenary powers of suspension, cancellation of the License and which can raid the clinics, cease the Machines and intitiate legal action for breach of provisopro of the Act. There are No. Of case laws on the point of misuse of Power by AA and High Courts have struck down the actions.. Sec. 33 gives the power to the Govt to make regulations and as per Sec 34, rules and regulations should be put before both the houses of Parliment. The Petitioner Doctor contended that he got the RTI information that no such rules and regulations have ever been out before the parliment and there was no AA appointed in Uttarakhand under Sec.17 in Official  Gazette, the rules made under the Act...

Doctors' License to run Sonography Clinic  restored as the action of suspension of license was held to be illegal. The Criminal Action initiated under PCPNDT Act was also quashed and set aside by Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande Case details : Dr. Tanuja and Dr. Shriniwas Barde  V/s.  State of Maharashtra and A.A., PCPNDT Act,  Medical Officer, Nanded. Cri. Appl. No.520/2018 ,dated 08/08/2018 Link of the judgment : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29733914/ Doctors' License to run Sonography Clinic  restored as the action of suspension of license was held to be illegal. The Criminal Action initiated under PCPNDT Act was also quashed and set aside. Facts in short : 1. The Doctor couple, a Gynecologist and her Chest Specialist husband from Dist. Nanded, Maharashtra, approached Hon. High Court thereby challenging the criminal action initiated against the...

USG Report given carelessly amounts to unethical practice and thus costed Rs.15 lakhs to Drs.. Adv. Rohit Erande. (In my opinion, this case is yet again another reason to amend MTP Act) http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FCC%2F221%2F2010&dtofhearing=2016-05-16 In a case of ANIL DUTT & ANR. V/s. VISHESH HOSPITAL, INDORE & ORS., the National Commission passed strictures upon the Radiologists / Sonologists for not adhering to . Hippocratic Oath ! Case of the Complainant. : 1. The Wife of the Complainant was under treatment of Doctors during her pregnancy. IT was contended that the concerned sonologists / radiologists gave wrong reports at both occasions after 20 weeks ,which resulted into serious consequences. 2. When the female-baby was born, she  was found not fully developed & her left arm and kidney were missing and even lungs were not completely developed and had fused spinal cord. Th...

Can Licenses required for running genetic / ultrasound clinics be renewed when the cases under PCPNDT Act are pending ? - Hon. Rajasthan High Court said "NO", whereas Hon. Bombay High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court have  decided in favour of Doctors stating that such applications can be made subject to provisions of the Act. Hon. Rajasthan High Court was dealing with various similar petitions filed by no. of aggrieved Doctors whose licenses required to run the clinics were not renewed as cases were pending against them.  Case Details : Dr. Rajesh Gaur V/s. State of Rajasthan & ors. Civi. W.P.no. 5858/2015, deiced on 22/10/2018 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI  Judgement Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47312283/ Facts in Short : 1.Various  Doctors from Rajasthan approached Hon'ble high Court as thier applications to renews the licenses to run clinic were rejected and not renewed subseque...