Important : Now Who can't Sign the Pathological Lab Reports ?

 Important : 
Who can Sign the Pathological Lab Reports ?


 The recent order -cum- answer dated 14/06/2017 of Medical Council of India (MCI) given to National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), a Constituent Board of Quality Council of India,  will have direct impact on the Pathological Labs across the India.



Background :

1. The NABL, vide its email dated 08/10/2014 asked few questions to MCI, which are as under .:
a) Whether the M. Sc with Ph D candidates who as a matter of fact are not registered with MCI are eligible to sign medical laboratory reports?
b) Can persons holding MBBS degree registered with MCI/State Medical Council sign the medical test reports?
c) Can PhD (Medical Microbiology, Medical Biochemistry, Life Sciences, Applied Biology, Cytogenetics, Biotechnology) in relevant discipline be allowed to sign medical test reports? If not, can the same be allowed if they are co-authorized with a person regis... ?


Almost after the period of 3 years, the MCI in its above referred letter dated 14/06/2017 replied to NABL that the said queries were put before the Ethics Committee of MCI and after several meetings and more particularly  the last meetings were  held on 06/02/2017 and 07/02/2017 and the decision of the Ethics Committee was placed before the Executive Committee for its approval on 11/04/2017. The said letter dated 14/06/2017 is attached herewith.


The MCI Executive Committee  decided that, " All the Lab reports to be signed/countersigned by the persons registered with MCI / State Medical Councils"



This decision, will have a direct impact on day to day functioning of number of Path. labs across the Country. Now from the date of this decision, the Labs report can be signed by qualified Doctors only and not by M.Sc. Ph.D. fellows. So if such other persons have signed the reports after the said date, will that make the reports illegal from the eyes of Law ?. The Copy of this letter has already been marked to Central Health Ministry.

 Unless this decision is challenged and stayed by the Competent Court, it has to be followed. No doubt it will certainly have a greater impact on Path-Labs, we have to see whether it will be positive or negative.. 

Somewhat similar judgments relating to qualifications :

A) On this background I recollect 2 decisions in respect of M.D. Medicine doctors. Whether M.D. MEdicine can call himself/herself as a Cardiologist and can he be called as negligent for giving neurological treatment in case of emergency. 

The links for ready reference  :


1. http://advrohiterande.blogspot.in/2017/04/md-medicine-doctor-fined-for-calling.html

2. http://advrohiterande.blogspot.in/2017/04/md-medicine-doctor-is-not-negligent.html

B) PCPNDT :

"It's not an offense under the PCPNDT Act, if the computer generated reports are signed by the owner of the Hospital and not by the concerned Sonologist/ Radiologist"" -  
The Hon. Bombay High Court ( Justice Smt. Anuja Prabhudesai) in its  judgment in the case of Dr. Rajender Sujanyal & Dr. Shripad Inamdar V/s. State of Maharashtra, (W.P. No.4310/2015, Criminal), has given huge relief to Doctors against the highanded action of AA, by observing as above.. However, this judgment has been challenegd before Hon. Apex Court by Pune Municipal Corporation.


Thanks and Regards

Adv. Rohit Erande

Pune. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital “Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” – National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor refused t
Read more

A "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.-Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

 The "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.© a. Non availability of Operation Theatre is not a valid ground to hold Hospital Negligent : b. Non functioning of Machines and Equipments cannot be said to be Negligence. c. It is an incorrect assumption to say that, "since surgery was performed by a doctor, he alone would be responsible for different aspects of the treatment required and given to the patient". d. It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital. e. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence. f.  In spite of the treatment, if the patient had not survived, the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable g. The doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of  res ips
Read more

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section " The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (MSCDRC) in its recent judgment dated 31/03/2017, gave the verdict against the Doctor, but absolved the Hospital.. Case details - Mr.Prashant Tamhane V/s. P.D. hinduja Hospital and anr. CC No.221 of 2003. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do… Facts in short : 1. This is the case of 2002. The wife (since deceased) of the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital after the blood reports revealed symptoms of hepatitis. There she was examined by Dr.Ashit Hegde, the Opponent no.2 Doctor in the present case. At that time he after examining the patient he thought it fit for not admitting the patient. By taking medication she was improving. 2.However after about one month, she had Chest pain and difficulty in breathing. Initial X-ray was normal, but in later X-ray, she was diagno
Read more