SARJOO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been filed in the light of the order of the Supreme Court dated 26-2-1999 in SLP (Civil) CC No. 8140/98. The order runs as under.

(2.) The above mentioned SLP had arisen from the order dated 9-10-1998 on an interlocutory application (IA No. 8296/97) in CWJC No. 8444 of 1997. The writ Petition was filed as a public interest litigation highlighting the mismanagement in the Patna Medical College & Hospital, a premier teaching Hospital in the State of Bihar. The said interlocutory application related to Vikalang Bhawan, which was then part and parcel of the Patna Medical College & Hospital. It was inter alia, alleged that the para medical staff posted there had been prescribing allopathic medicines to patients, describing themselves as 'Doctors'. Notice was issued to the persons concerned, namely, Shri Sarjoo Prasad and others. They did not deny that they had signed OPD slips, issued prescriptions and prescribed allopathic medicines. They also did not deny describing themselves as Doctors in the OPD slips or the prescriptions. They took the stand that being certificate holders in Occupational Therapy - involving study of subject similar to the study for the MBBS degree, they were eligible to prescribe allopathic medicines. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 2073, and in view of the provisions of Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, this Court found their action to be illegal amounting to misconduct and making them, liable to criminal prosecution in view of Section 15(3) of the Act, and accordingly directed the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar to take appropriate action against them.

(3.) Two issues were settled by this Court by the aforesaid order 9-10-1998 -firstly, that the Occupational Therapists/Physiotherapists, which Shri Sarjoo Prasad and others claimed to be, could not use the prefix 'Doctor' in their names, and secondly, that they could not prescribe allopathic medicines. Before the Supreme Court however, it appears, larger question were raised as to whether the discipline of Occupational therapy/physiotherapy is a recognised discipline. This aspect of the case was not argued before this Court and therefore, not gone into in the earlier order. In a sense, thus, in view of the order of the Supreme Court, the scope of the review petition would appear to be wider than the scope of the order dated 9-10-1998 of which review is sought, In my respectful opinion, the question as to whether the discipline of Occupational Therapy/Physiotherapy is a recognised discipline notwithstanding, the question would still remain as to whether the Occupational Therapists/Physiotherapists could practise medicines as being purportedly done by Shri Sarjoo Prasad and others, and a distinction may be drawn in this regard between the para medical staff posted in hospitals like Vikalang Bhawan and qualified Occupational Therapists/Physiotherapists who have obtained the degree in Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy after prosecuting the course and completing the training.