High Court issues guidelines to National Medical Council

High Court issues guidelines to National Medical Council

Nation owes a collective duty to safeguard doctors from frivolous complaints

The Madras High Court has issued a set of guidelines to be included in the new regulations that are to be framed under the National Medical Council (NMC) Act, 2019. This has been done for effective handling of complaints against medical practitioners being targeted on flimsy grounds.

The single-judge bench of Justice R Mahadevan observed that the nation owed a collective duty to safeguard doctors from frivolous complaints.

The directions came on a petition filed by a practicing doctor, a gastroenterologist, challenging his suspension by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC).

Terming the TNMC's suspension 'unjustified', the court said there was no ground for disciplinary action against him. It maintained that since no direct complaint was registered against him, he was devoid of the opportunity to prove innocence.

The court further said, "While in the larger interest of the society, the highest degree of care, caution, propriety and rectitude is expected from and followed by the medical practitioners, who discharge a noble profession," it is important to acknowledge their services and have regard for the work they do under tremendous pressure - physically, mentally, morally and professionally.

"They cannot be expected to perform their best if the Sword of Damocles is kept hanging on their head. Enough protection needs to be given to the medical practitioners in order that they may not be penalized, targeted or punished, unjustly," it added.

Directing the reinstatement of the petitioner, the court suggested a series of guidelines to be included in the new regulation to be framed under the NMC Act.

The suggestions include altering the rules mandating the preservation of medical documents for three years to 10 years by digitizing the documents and disposing of complaints filed against doctors within six months.

Key points of suggestions:

1. The Code/Regulations should enunciate in general the duties bestowed by law on a registered medical practitioner. These duties and responsibilities are standards to be met by all medical practitioners in general.

2. After enumerating the general duties and responsibilities expected from a registered medical practitioner, certain specific duties and responsibilities (the violation of which would entail disciplinary action), would be construed as 'professional misconduct' to be enumerated in a list of instances that are illustrative.

3. Thereafter, complete stage-wise guidelines/mechanism has to be envisaged under the Code/Regulations from the time of filing of the complaint by an aggrieved person to the registration of such a complaint with the concerned medical council and the procedure to be followed.

4. The procedure for dealing with complaints would include the issuance of the show-cause notice, opportunity for the accused doctor to reply, constitution of an expert committee and an opportunity to hear both parties. While following the principles of natural justice, the submission of a detailed report by the inquiry committee and the submission of its recommendation to the disciplinary board of the State Medical Council/Ethics and Medical Registration Board (MRB), would be imperative.

5. In order to make the disciplinary proceedings free from any loopholes and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the report of the inquiry committee would be made final and binding by the disciplinary board of the State Medical Council/Ethics and MRB.

6. The disciplinary board of the State Medical Council/Ethics and MRB would have a permanent tenure and a fixed three-member body (constituted on election by the Commission from amongst its members). It would function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of professional misconduct by registered medical practitioners under the Code/Regulations.

7. The inquiry committee would have to be appointed by the unanimous consent of the members of the Disciplinary Board of the State Medical Council/Ethics and MRB.

8. The inquiry committee shall be a three-member committee with one member from the field of general/internal medicine and two from the concerned fields as required on a case-to-case basis.

9. Any complaint made to the State Medical Council/Ethics and MRB shall be disposed of within six months from the time of filing of the complaint.

10. For the purpose of giving enough and extensive powers to the inquiry committee, inspiration may be drawn from Section 42 of the Advocates Act, 1961 where the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council is given extensive powers with respect to conducting enquiry, recording of evidence, etc.

11. A period of limitation for filing a complaint against a medical practitioner can be loosely fixed by the Council while giving liberty to the disciplinary board to relax the same if the case so deserves.