SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners are practising as registered Medical Practitioner on the basis of their 'A' Class Registration. They all are qualified as B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic and Medicines Surgery) as alleged. Even though in regard to certain writ petitioners there is difference of their academic qualification, however, the point involving in the case is whether the petitioners who are registered as Ayurvedic Medical Practitioners can be allowed to practise in Medicine profession in regard to other system of Medicine that is Homoeopathy or Allopathy. No order has been challenged, not any overt action has been alleged against any of the respondents. It is also not mentioned that their shops were checked or they were restrained from practising in system other than Ayurvedic or that they were challaned for violation of any Drugs Act or under any system of the mal-practise, but still the petitioners are apprehending that the respondents are likely to restrain the petitioners from practising in other system of medicine other than the system in which they are qualified and registered i.e. Ayurvedic.

(2.) The written statement has been filed by respondents. It is stated by respondents that if at all the petitioners are registered validly for having obtained Ayurvedic degrees they can practise as per law only in the system of Ayurvedic and no other system can be permitted to be practised by petitioners. The respondents have also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 332 : (AIR 1996 SC 2111), Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with case of registered medical practitioners, who were registered under Homoeopathic system only, observed that the respondents in that case were under statutory duty not to enter the field of any other system of medicine for the reason that the respondent in that case was not qualified in the other system i.e. Allopathy. Therefore, his conduct amounted to an actionable negligence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 41 and 43 of the case as under :-

(3.) Rather the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Verma (AIR 1996 SC 2111) (supra) had observed that the respondents having practised in Allopathy system and without being qualified in that system was guilty of negligence per se.