w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sushil Kumar Sharma v/s State of Rajasthan

    Civil Writ Petition No. 5584 of 1996

    Decided On, 31 August 1998

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.C. VERMA

    For the Petitioner: Hanuman Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate.



Judgment Text

J. C. Verma, J.

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 cas

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e 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 SCC) : (Paras 39 and 41 of AIR) of the case as under :-

"41. Since the law, under which Respondent 1 was registered as a medical practitioner, required him to practise in HOMOEOPATHY ONLY, he was under a statutory duty not to enter the field of any other system of medicine as, admittedly, he was not qualified in the other system, Allopathy, to be practised. He trespassed into a prohibited field and was liable to be prosecuted under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. His conduct amounted to an actionable negligence particularly as the duty of care indicated by this Court in Dr. Laxman Joshi case (AIR 1969 SC 128) WAS BREACHED BY HIM ON ALL THE THREE COUNTS INDICATED THEREIN."

"43. A person who does not have knowledge of particular system of medicine but practises in that system is a quach and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a charlatan."

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.

4. For the reasons mentioned above, the contention of respondent has merit and the writ petition, is therefore, likely to be dismissed.

5. The petitioners if they are registered under Ayurvedic system can only practise in Ayurvedic system and if they violate their statutory condition of Registration, it goes without saying that the petitioners or any other person makes himself liable for negligence or violation of the law, which may be applicable in the circumstances of the case.

6. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed at admission stage, with cost. The cost is assessed as Rs. 5,000/-.
O R