P T SHEELA Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Medical Doctor having graduated in Medicine from West Germany, after completing 6 year course, followed by 18 months internship. The university in which she undertook the course has been recognised by the Medical Council of India then. Now such recognition is not relevant after the amendment of 2001, as admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Medical Council of India. The petitioner being fully qualified is practicing Medicine in Germany and has been doing so for the last number of years. After acquiring the graduate qualification she has also acquired post graduate qualification from Germany and is stated to be still continuing in practice at Germany.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Medical Council of India to grant her registration enabling her to practice medicine in India. Petitioner having applied for registration in the year 2000, the Medical Council of India issued Ext.P11 order dated 31.10.2002 directing the petitioner to appear for a screening test. The petitioner contended that the requirement of a screening test was brought in by an amendment in 2001 and as on the date of her application in 2000, there was no such requirement. The Medical Council could not insist upon a screening test in the case of the petitioner, was her contention. The petitioner since she was working in Germany could not challenge the order immediately and on reaching India she challenged the same by the present writ petition. The Medical Council of India has filed a counter affidavit in the above matter.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel however would bring to my attention that the petitioner cannot at all be termed as similarly situated as those persons referred to Ext.R1(a) judgment. Specifically referring to paragraph 11 it is submitted that the Supreme Court had insisted on such procedure because the petitioners therein having completed their course in 2003-2004 and having undergone screening test in 2005, had not been practicing thereafter and when considering an application for registration after a number of years, the only method by which the retention of their skills could be ensured was by a subsequent internship for one year and a screening test. These facts, it is submitted by the Senior Counsel are particularly applicable only to the petitioners in Ext.R1(a) judgment and the petitioner herein stands on a completely different footing, since she has after her graduation obtained post graduation qualification and has been continuously practicing in West Germany. The learned counsel for the Medical Council of India then would submit that the petitioner had not informed the said fact to the Medical Council of India. The learned Senior Counsel alertly brings to my notice that the petitioner never had the opportunity since the same was not at all sought for by the Medical Council of India and the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit were never put to her before.