FACTS IN BRIEF :- One Mr. Promod Verma was treated for fever by Dr. Ashwin Patel, a Homeopathic doctor, He used certain allopathic medicines such as Inj Dictofenae sodium, Tab Ciprofloxacin 500mg, Tab paracctamol, Tab Diavol, Tab Bcomplex. Even after Nine days of treatment the patient did not improve and the patient was taken to allopathic doctors who also treated the patient but the patient died on Tenth day. The widow of the deceased, Poonam Verma, filed a case against the doctor. The judge did not proceed against allopathic doctors because they had practiced their own system of medicine. The judge declared that any doctor who practiced and prescribed medicines about which he did not study and was not registered with the Council constituted by law was a mere pretender to the knowledge in that system and is a Quack. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS:- The Appellant sought to establish the liability of the doctor under (a) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (b) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (c) Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 and (d) Bombay Homeopathic Practitioners Act 1960. It was argued that “Like Cures Like" is the basis of Homeopathy whereas Allopathic is quite opposite to this. Pharmacology, which is the study of allopathic drugs, is not taught to homeopathic students.
JUDGMENT:- The Supreme Court held that ‘Registered Homeopathic Practitioner’ must be mentioned in every clinic of homeopathic doctor. Thus the appeal was upheld and the court fined Rs.3 lakhs payable to the wife of the deceased. Further the Medical Council of India was directed to punish the Homeopathic doctor for violating Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In consequence thereof the Respondent was sentenced for period of 3 years.
FOR COMMON MAN:- This judgment holds that ‘ Cross practicing’ by doctors of different systems of medicine is illegal. Even Allopathic doctors must not practice Ayurveda and vice versa. If any doctor prescribes medicines on the subject, which is not taught to him, can be imprisoned by virtue of this case. However, this judgment seems to have been partially overruled by Jacob Matthew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that a doctor is not liable unless gross negligence is proved against him.
0 Comments