J SAI PRASANNA Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTION for determination in these cases being the same, common order is a necessity. In all these cases, decision dated 10. 2. 2006 of Executive Committee of Medical Council of India (MCI) and Ad hoc committee dated 10. 2. 2006 not to grant registration to Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS)students who have undergone part of training in an institution in India without obtaining permission from Government of India/mci, is impugned as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to grant provisional registration and/or permanent registration under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (the act, for brevity ). The said decision of executive Committee was communicated to all petitioners by different impeached communications sent by Additional Secretary to MCI.

(2.) THESE cases can be divided into three groups. In first group, Indian students obtained MBBS degree awarded by international Medical and Technological university (IMTU), Dar-es-salaam, Tanzania. They passed screening test for foreign medical graduates conducted by National board of Examinations (NBE) under aegis of mci as per relevant provision in the Act. When they applied for temporary registration under Section 25 (1) of the Act, same was denied on the ground that students completed part of the course in unrecognized Indian medical colleges. In second group, students after completing MBBS in Tanzania obtained provisional registration and after completion of internship, applied and got permanent registration from Andhra Pradesh Medical council (State Council ). MCI, however, while cancelling permanent registration, requested holders to surrender original permanent registration certificates. In third group, all the petitioners allegedly studied entire MBBS course in IMTU, Dar-es-salaam. They also passed screening test conducted by NBE, obtained provisional certificates and completed internship. When they applied for permanent registration, MCI asked for details as to whether students completed entire course in IMTU, Dar-es-salaam. Petitioners having procured evidence in support of the same, produced before MCI who did not pass any orders.

(3.) THE case of MCI in all writ petitions is one of justification. Core contention is that vignan Educational Foundation (VEF), bangalore, set up IMTU in Tanzania and even before recognition/accreditation was granted, VEF advertised seats, admitted students and those students prosecuted preclinical and para-clinical courses at Guntur. Those students later continued their course for period of 1 year at Dar-es-salaam. As mandatory recognition/permission under section 10a of the Act was not granted even if petitioners completed their clinical course/ training in IMTU, Tanzania, registration cannot be granted. For ready reference, paragraphs 33 to 35 of counter affidavit in w. P. No. 24645 of 2006 may be extracted. The averments of para 2 discloses that the petitioners have done both pre-clinical and para-clinical training in an institution at Guntur in Andhra Pradesh for a period of four years. The petitioners state that they have thereafter continued their education for a period of 1 years at Dar-e-Salaam in Tanzania. This would clearly show that the petitioners cannot claim to have studied in a medical institution outside India. The medical institution where the petitioners have studied for a majority part of their course is in India and the same was established without obtaining the approval under Section 10a of the indian Medical Council Act. The same cannot therefore be treated as an education availed in a proper medical institution within India for the petitioners to claim any benefit from such course of study. A medical institution would necessarily mean institution where the students are imparted training and education. Merely because the sites of head Office of the institution, is in a different country it would not automatically mean that the medical institution is located outside India. It would be mandatory that the entire institution where training and education is imparted, has to be outside India for the purpose of Sections 12 and 13 of the act. In the admitted facts of the case that the petitioners have studied a major part of their course in India they cannot be treated as students of a medical institution outside India. It is therefore incorrect to contend that MBBS degree obtained by the petitioners is a recognized qualification for the purposes of the Indian Medical Council Act or that the same is to be recognized by the Medical Council of India after conducting a screening test. In reply to para 3 it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to appear for the screening test inasmuch as the petitioners have availed training and education in an unrecognized institution in India and the petitioners are therefore not eligible for being entitled to appear for the screening test and claim any provisional registration thereafter. The medical institution (being the campus at Guntur) where the petitioners have studied cannot also be stated to be a medical institution outside India for the petitioners to claim the benefit of section 13 (4a) and 13 (4b ).