Insight on Medicoleagl Issues:I am an integrated medical practitioner. I am registered under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.

Legal Question of the day

(Prof. M C Gupta, Advocate & Medicolegal Consultant)

Q. I am an integrated medical practitioner. I am registered under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. I have a qualification in Indian medicine and I claim, on the basis of the following acts, rules, notifications etc. that I am legally competent and allowed to practice modern medicine/allopathy. Do you agree with my claim?

Ans.

1. I do not agree with your claim. As a matter of fact, it is not a question of whether I agree or not. It is more a question of whether the courts, including the Supreme Court, agree or not.
2. By the way, let me make it clear that there is nothing like integrated medicine or integrated medical practitioner. This term is not mentioned in any legislation or court judgment. On the other hand, the MCI circular no. MCI/Circular/10/1116–31–32/Anti–quackery/2010 dated 10–8–2010 sent to various authorities (Health Secretaries of all states; Health directorates of all states; Directors of Indian Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy of all states; Registrars of all State boards/Councils; District magistrates of all states; Superintendent of Police of districts of all states; and, Secretary–general of IMA) states in para 3 as follows: "There is no system of medicine recognised in our country like: 1—Electro–homeopathy; 2—Alternative System of medicine; 3—Integrated system of medicine or integrated medicine". Hence you are simply a practitioner of Indian Medicine and not of integrated medicine.
3. Even otherwise, the word "integrated" does not occur anywhere in the Act under which you are registered.
4. The acts, rules, notifications etc. referred by you are discussed below:
   
   1) According to MMP ACT 1961 section 2(fa) says that Indian medicine means astang ayurveda or siddha or unani whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the central council from time to time by notification may declare under clause (e) of section 2 of the IMCC ACT 1970.
   
   My Response: This means nothing. It does not mean you are qualified to practice allopathy. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors. Vs. State Of Punjab & Ors., Date Of Judgment: 08/10/1998, K. T. Thomas, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, AIR 1999, SC 468, (1998 (7) SCC 579.
   
   Also section 25(1) says that a legally qualified medical practitioner under MMP ACT 1961, having right to practice any system of medicine shall, in all acts of the state legislature and in all central acts, i.e., IMCC Act 1970.
   
   My Response: You are trying to distort things. The Preamble to the Act reads— "An Act to regulate the qualifications and to provide for the registration of practitioners of the Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Systems of Medicine…" The words "any system of medicine" in your quote refer to any system out of the three systems mentioned. Also section 33(1)(i) says that the register mentioned under MMP ACT 1961, registered practitioners shall practice any system of medicine in the state.
   
   My Response: You are falsely trying to distort things. The register referred concerns only the three systems, namely, Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani.
   
   2) IMCC ACT 1970, in which all practitioners of ISM are registered are having right and privilege of practicing any system of medicine have been protected under section 17(3)(b) of IMCC ACT 1970.
   
   My Response: Your statement is wrong. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand case.
   
   3) According to the state GAZZETE published by GOVT OF MAHARASHTRA dated 25/11/1992 it is clearly mentioned that "the govt. of Maharashtra here by directs that the Ayurvedic practitioners enrolled on the state register under MMP ACT1961 holding qualification specified in part A, B & A–1 of the schedule appended in the said act shall be eligible to practice the modern system of medicine which is known as allopathic system of medicine to the extent of the training they received in that system.
   
   My Response: I have not seen the said gazette notification. It appears you are again misquoting/misrepresenting. This is most likely so because the said notification is based upon the MMP ACT1, i961, which concerns only the three Indian systems mentioned above. The said notification is dated 1992 and stands over–ruled by the Mukhtiar Chand judgment dated 1998.
   
   4) When the food and drug commissioner issued a misguiding circular dated 18/12/1996 directing to all the chemists in Maharashtra not to honour the prescriptions of ISM doctors if it contains allopathic medicine, our organisation filed a writ petition in honourable HIGH COURT Mumbai bench, the honourable HIGH court Mumbai quashed the said circular & after that department of medical education & drug passed a GOVT. NOTIFICATION order dated 23/02/1999 that the practitioners registered under MMP ACT 1961 in part A, A–1,B&D can practice modern scientific system of medicine for the purpose of the Drug & Cosmetic Act 1940 (23 of 1940).
   
   My Response: The position stated by you is untenable. Mukhtiar Chand applies. MMPA has nothing to do with allopathy.
   
   5) In the letter issued by under–secretary B. H. Tayade dated 28/05/2007 under RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT it is clearly informed that the Ayurvedic practitioners can practice allopathic system of medicine.
   
   My Response: Even if it is so stated (though not accepted) that it is so mentioned in some statement sought/given under RTI, it has no value. The purpose of RTI is to reveal official documents and not to inform about or interpret law. SC has already done that. Mukhtiar Chand is still valid.
   
   6) According to the CCIM resolution dated 30/08/1996 "institutionally qualified practitioners of ISM & those covered under IMCC ACT 1970 are eligible to practice Indian system of medicine & modern medicine which is known as allopathic medicine including surgery, gynecology & obstetrics based on their training & teaching. This training & teaching is included in the syllabus of CCIM. The meaning of the word modern advances means advances made in various branches of modern scientific medicine, clinical, non–clinical & bio–sciences.
   
   My Response: This resolution has no meaning. It cannot negate a SC judgment.
   
   7) According to the CCIM notification dated 30/10/1996 it is clearly mentioned that, The right of practitioners of ISM doctors to practice modern scientific system of medicine (Allopathic medicine) are protected under section 17(3)(b) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
   
   My Response: This notification was considered and not relied upon by the court in Dr. J. Kaleem Nawaz vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Madras, 29 October, 2010, M. Sathyanarayanan, J.