Medicolegal Update:Can the medical council take action against a pathologist who signs path lab reports of other laboratories without visiting the lab?

Q. 
 Ans.
 1—The medical council has wide powers. However, such powers must not be misused.
 2—Delhi Medical Council punished a doctor recently in the above circumstances. The order no. 1082 sated 3-6-2013 can be viewed at --
http://delhimedicalcouncil.nic.in/status-comp2013.html
 3—The order, abridged, is reproduced below:
 “The Disciplinary Committee of the Delhi Medical Council examined an inspection report of the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, North West District, Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Dispensary Building, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 in respect of Parh Medical Centre, D-123, Gali No.9, Mangal Bazar Road, Shardhanand Colony, Balaswa Dairy, Delhi wherein it is noted that Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar has been associating with unqualified medical practitioners, in carrying out his professional practice.
 The Disciplinary Committee perused the inspection report of the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, North West District, along with documents attached therewith and other documents on record.

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar presented himself before the Disciplinary Committee.
 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar stated that he is holder of  M.B.B.S.  and M.D. (Pathology) qualification and is also practicing some part of Biochemistry and microbiology also.  He further stated that he is practicing as pathologist in twenty to twenty five labs but visiting only those labs which are near to his house.  He never visits those labs which are very far from his house in that case he sees slides on internet and give report on telephone.
 The Disciplinary Committee noted that he does not visit labs and prepares the pathology report without visiting the lab.
 The Disciplinary Committee further noted that Dr. Rakesh Kumar did not submit the following documents, inspite of directions.
 1. A copy of F.I.R. against those individuals who have been using his name without his consent.
2. List of labs/clinic/NGOs with complete address and contact number where he had been visiting for the last three months.
3. A copy of agreement with terms and conditions between him and labs/clinics/NGOs of the last three months.
4. Receipts of amount (salary) which he has received from the labs/clinics/NGOs of the last three months.
5. Details of salary which he receives from Saraswati Medical College and appointment letter from Saraswati Medical College where he is presently working.
6. List of all the institutions wherein he has worked till now including medical colleges and duration of work along with details of salary.
 In light of the above, the Disciplinary Committee observes that the aforementioned actions of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar are highly unprofessional and reflects his casual attitude, hence, the Disciplinary Committee recommends that name of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar (Delhi Medical Council registration No. 8037) be removed from the State Medical Register of the Delhi Medical Council for a period of sixty days and directs that he should refrain from such unethical practices, in future.  A copy of this Order to be sent to the Medical Council of India for appropriate action for his affiliation with a medical college.
The decision / opinion of the Delhi Medical Council holding Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar guilty of professional misconduct is final.  However, the Order directing the removal of name from the State Medical Register of Delhi Medical Council shall come into effect after 30 days from the date of the Order.” 
4—My comments about the above order are as follows:

 i)—The DMC has labelled it as a suo moto case (which means a case taken up by the court on its own motion). In this case, it appears that a complaint was made to the DMC by the Chief District Medical Officer, North West District. Hence it cannot possibly be called a suo moto case.

 ii)—The punishment given is too light. It is unfortunate that punishments are given by the medical councils in a whimsical manner. They have no guidelines to ensure that the punishment given is proportionate to the gravity of the offence. MCI has admitted the absence of such criteria in writing in reference to RTI.

 iii)—The DMC wrongly stated that –“The decision / opinion of the Delhi Medical Council holding Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar guilty of professional misconduct is final”. This raises the following issues:

a)--It has unnecessarily referred to its order as an opinion. As a matter of fact, no opinion can be final.  

b)—It has wrongly and falsely conveyed to the delinquent doctor that the order of the DMC is final. It cannot be final as long it is possible in law to file an appeal against the impugned order.

 iv)-- The DMC wrongly stated that the order “shall come into effect after 30 days from the date of the Order.” 

 a)—The time allowed for appeal is 60 days, not 30 days.

b)—The period of 60 days commences, as per law, after the date of receipt of the order and not from the date of the order.

 5—It is open to the doctor concerned to take the following actions:
 i)—To approach the HC u/s 24(2) against removal of name from the register before the expiry of 60 days after receipt of the order.

 ii)—To file an appeal before the MCI.