Lab Reports Can be signed only by qualified Pathologist- Hon. Supreme Court.

Laboratory Reports can be
counter signed only by a registered medical
practitioner with a postgraduate qualification in Pathology :
Supreme Court. 


 Case Details :

 NORTH GUJARAT UNIT OF ASSOCIATION OF
SELF EMPLOYED OWNERS (PARAMEDICAL) OF
PRIVATE PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES OF GUJARAT
V/s.

 NORTH GUJARAT PATHOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION & ORS.

 Link for the Judgment :
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2010/31471/31471_2010_Order_12-Dec-2017.pdf
Facts of the Case :
1. The  Medical Council of India (MCI) vide its Letter dated 14/06/2017 in a reply to a query of  given to National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), a Constituent Board of Quality Council of India, mentioned that " All the Lab reports to be signed/countersigned by the persons registered with MCI / State Medical Councils"

2. This decision was challenged across the India by various Associations of Lab Technicians as same being  without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereafter 'IMC Act'). It is further contended that the impugned communication deprives members of the petitioner association of their valuable right to conduct their trade and profession. 

3. It was also contended that there work of conducting laboratory test and submitting reports thereof is essentially a skilled task for which the members of the petitioner association are amply qualified with M.Sc/PHD degrees.

4. It was  the stand of  MCI that   Section 15(2)(c) of IMC Act  expressly provides that no person other than a medical practitioner would be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner.
Held :
Many of these petitions were tagged together and finally the Apex Court (Coram : Hon. Ranjan Gogoi and Hon. Mrs. R. Banumathi. JJ) in its verdict dated 12/12/2017, upheld the stand of MCI and observed that, 
" We dispose of all these Special leave petitions and other pending applications, if any, by taking a view that the stand of Medical Council Of India that Laboratory Report can be countersigned only by a registered medical practitioner with a post graduate qualification in pathology is correct".


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 ?. 
One more aspect, Job of Lab-Technicians is not going to be lowered by this judgment. Any Lab cannot work without Technicians, correct me if I am wrong. So in my humble opinion it should not be made an ego issue. 
Path-Labs will have to consider the practical problems that may arise from this judgment. 

It's interesting to see some similar situations in the Medical Field.. :

 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.

C) Recently it was read on the Social Media that MCI has field an affidavit in Hon. Apex Court stating that only Radiologists can perform USG. This has been severely criticised by the Medicos.

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 ...
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