Home About Us Courses Facilities Study Centre Director Message Download Photo Gallery Result Online Registration Contact Us Register Verification
Integrated Medical Body of Acupuncture
 
Loading
 
APPLICATION ARE INVITED
OPENING COLLEGE OF ACUPUNCTURE MEDICINE

ADMISSION START
B.A.M.S. (Acupuncture) M.D.(Acupuncture) D.A.M.S.(Acupuncture)

cms
CMS (Allopathy) 2 year Qualification 10th

Result Dec-2020
BAMS , M.D. Acupuncture Result Declare Dec-2020

 

C.M.S.E.D. Allopathy

CMS ALLOPATHY COURSE NAME OF THE COURSE & DURATION

Course : CMS ED Duration : TWO YEARS



Eligibility : 10th or Higher/ BAMS, BHMS, BUMS



CMS diploma is known as diploma in Community Medical Services. It is a diploma for primary health care by general Allopathic medicines, which are recommended by the world health Organasation for primary health care. The Hon. Supreme court has given an order that CMS Diploma holder can given the treatment in all disease including Infection disease. Qualification: 10th or Higher/ BAMS, BHMS, BUMS.

Recommended Medicine (W.H.O)
LIST OF GENERAL ALLOPATHIC MEDICINES (RECOMMENDED BY W.H.O.

(WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION) FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE FOR CMS DIPLOMA HOLDER The List Is Based On The Book Essential Drugs For Primary Health Care Published By W.H.O. Genewa, Switzarland And The Book Written By Spanish Dr. David Warner Published By VOLUNTARY HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA , SWASTHYA , BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. The List had been Send To The Health Ministry . The Govt. Of India , By ICM&HC ( The Moved Iosms University ) Vide No (SPEU-563552573 IN) According To The Hon Supreme Court Judgement, CMS Diploma holder can provide his Basic Medical Services to the distressed humanity by the medicine which are recomended by WHO For Primary Health Care.
• Glucose Powder D&C
• Oral Rehydration Salt
• Lime Water
• Camphor Water
• Chlorine Water
• Hydrogen Per Oxide
• Acriflavin Powder (Lotion)
• Gention Violet Paint
• Carbolic Acid
• Povidine Lodine (Solution , Ointment)
• Ring Warm Ointment(White Fields Liniment)
• Neomycin- Bactricine Ointment
• Benzyl Benzoate Lotion
• Gama Benzene Hexa Chloride (Lindane)
• Potassium Per Magnate (KMnO4)
• Calamine Lotion
• Zinc Sulphate Powder
• Sulphur Powder
• Boric Powder
• Castor Oil
• Glycerin
• Magnesium Sulphate
• Belladonna
• Asprin
• Paracetamol
• Ibuprofen
• Diclofenac
• Chlorempheniramine Maleate
• Cetrizine Hydrochloride
• Gripe Water
• Vitamin A
• Vitamin B Complex
• Vitamin C
• Vitamin D
• Vitamin E
• Isabgoal Powder
• Senna Leaves
• Soda Bi Card (Sodium Bi –Carbonate)
• Yeast Tablets
• Piperazine Powder
• Mebendazol
• Ferrus Sulphate ( Iron Preparations )
• Procain Hydrochloride
• Furazolidone
• Matronidazole
• Kaolin Powder
• Liver Pills & Syrup
• Folic Acid
• Magnesium Tricillicate
• Calcium Pills
• Calcium Lactate
• Ashoka Cordial
• Oral Contraceptive pills & syrup
• Enzyme Tablets
• Haemostatic Tablets
• Diethyl Carbamazine Citrate (Benocide)
• Ephedrine
• Aminophyllin Tablets
• Codine Sulphate
• Dexamethasone
• Betamethasone
• Chloroquine
• Primoquine
• Dome peridome
• Degepam
• Dicyclomine Hydro Chloride
• Atropine
• Co- Trimoxazole
• Sulphadimidene
• Penciline
• Amoxycilline
• Ampicilline
• Gentamycin
• Tetracycline
• Chloremphenicol
• Dextrose 5% Sodium Chlore 9% Injection
• Tabramycin
• Grisofulwin Tablets
• Streptomycin
• DDS (Sulphone)
• Rifampicin Capsules
• Clofazimine Tablets
• Streptomycin
• Isoniazid Tablets
• Refampicin Capsule
• Thiocetazone Isoniazid Tablet
• Pyrizinamide Tablets
• Tuberculosis Tablet
• Streptomycin
• Sumag & Mag Mag
• Boroglycerine
• Paracetamol+ ibuprofen Or Diclofenac
• Iodex Ointment
• Corex Or Vics 44 Cough Syrup
• Multivitamin Tablets Or Capsuls
• Etophyllin Tablets
• Betnovate N., C. , Skin Ointment
• DPT Vaccine
• Carminative Mixture

Legal Status

The CMS Diploma is valid all over India for Practice by Harmless General Allopathic Medicines for Primary Health Care Practice. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme C

C
Dr. Sunil Dangwal vs The Registrar on 9 February, 2016
Author: Hemraj
                               IN THE COURT OF HEM RAJ 
                          ACJ/CCJ/ARC¬(SOUTH EAST DISTRICT), 
                               SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI



CS. No. 41/2015
Unique case ID No. 02406C0052972015



Dr. Sunil Dangwal
S/o Sh. Manwar Singh Dangwal
Owner of Garhwal Clinic,
Gali No. 26, Molarband Extension,
Badarpur, New Delhi. 
Also
Residing at:¬E¬67, Mohan Baba Nagar,
Badarpur, New Delhi.                                                            .........Plaintiff

                                                     Versus

1.
The Registrar Delhi Medical Council Room No. 308, IIIrd Floor, Administrative Block, Maulana Azad
Medical College, New Delhi. 
2. The Secretary Ministry of Health Department, Govt. of India, 1st Floor, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 
CS. No. 41/2015 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council & Ors. age 1 of 11 
3. The Secretary/Chairman Department of Ayurveda Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Sidha and Homeopathy,
Ayush Bhawan, B¬Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi. .........Defendants Suit instituted on : 
16.02.2015 Judgment pronounced on : 09.02.2016 EX¬PARTE JUDGMENT 
1. This is a suit instituted by plaintiff against the defendants seeking a decree of mandatory
 injunction thereby directing the defendants to remove the name of the clinic of plaintiff i.e
 Garhwal Clinic, Gali No. 26, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi¬110044 from the list of
 fake/incompetent clinic/doctors website which has been done by the defendants in collusion and
 in connivance with one another with immediate effect. Further a decree of perpetual injunction
 thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, attorneys, assignees, representatives
 etc. from illegally and forcibly publishing the name of abovesaid clinic of plaintiff and from
 interfering/restraining in the peaceful operation/run/practice of the said clinic CS. No. 41/2015
 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council & Ors. age 2 of 11 by the plaintiff
 without any due process of law. 
2. Brief narration of the facts as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff is Prathmic Chikitsak
 Doctor by profession and is running a clinic under the name and style of Garhwal Clinic, Gali No.
 26, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi. Plaintiff is having a valid degree of Medical
 Education as "Diploma in Naturopathy & Yogic Science (DNYS)" obtained from All India Nature Cure
 Federation, Delhi Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Patparganj, New Delhi in the year 2006. Plaintiff has also
 obtained and having a diploma in Community Medical Service (CMS) and ED from Maharshi Balmiki
 National University, New Delhi in the year 2011. Plaintiff on the basis of abovesaid documents has
 been running his clinic and providing better services to the citizens locality and the society as
 well as other persons. Plaintiff surprised when he watched the name of his clinic on defendants
 Delhi Medical Council website as "Doctor is not competent to run clinic in the name and style of
 Garhwal Clinic". The Medical Council of India clearly stated vide letter No. MCI¬2013 (1)/2004¬
 Regn./10/93 dated 21.04.2004 in reference to "permission recognition of Para¬medical & CMS & Ed
 Certificate & Diploma Courses", that "With reference to defendants letter No. NBV HAB 13X04, dated
 08.10.2004, on the subject noted above this is to inform defendants that Paramedical & CMS & ED
 courses do not come under the purview of Medical Council of India, New Delhi. As CS. No. 41/2015
 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council & Ors. age 3 of 11 such, permission of
 the MCI is not required for starting/running Para¬medical & CMS & ED courses in MCI as on date". 
So, admittedly keeping in view the abovesaid observation Medical Council of Delhi has absolutely
 no authority to blacklist the abovesaid clinic of plaintiff or put any ban on that. 
The Health Ministry of India, vide its order dated 25.11.2003, letter no. R14015/25/96 U & H (R)
(Pt) having given permission to practice the doctor who has Naturopathy degree from recognized
 university. 
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment and order dated 19.02.2003 has held that 
"Giving thousands of diploma holder in Community Medical Service (C.M.S) the right to prescribe
 medicine is unjust to allow them only to treat rural population without the consequential right
 to prescribe medicine or issue medical certificate." Aggrieved from the said illegal acts of the
 defendants, the plaintiff with all relevant documents approached three times to the office of
 defendant no. 1 and showed the said documents to the officials of defendant no. 1 and requested 
 them to remove the name of clinic from the list of fake/incompetent clinic/doctors on the website
 of the defendants. It has been further stated that due to said illegal acts of defendants, 
 plaintiff is suffering exceptional financial loss and further have lost his reputation in society
 and legal fraternity. Thereafter, plaintiff issued a statutory legal notice dated 08.12.2014 under
 section 80 CPC to the CS. No. 41/2015 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council
 & Ors. age 4 of 11 defendants calling upon them to stop their abovesaid illegal, unlawful and
 unwarranted acts of wrongly publishing the name of plaintiff's clinic on the fake/incompetent 
 clinic/doctors website. The defendants neither replied to the said notice nor removed/de¬listed the
 name of plaintiff's clinic. Hence, the present suit. 
3. Defendant no. 1 entered the contest by filing written statement. It has been submitted that the
 plaintiff has filed the present suit on the wrong premises that he is a doctor being the holder 
 of Diploma in Naturopathy and Yogic Science from All India Nature Cure Federation and Diploma in
 Community Medical Service & ED from Maharshi Valmiki National University. The plaintiff can not 
 claim himself to be a doctor and practice in Allopathic System of Medicine in the NCT of Delhi
 without being registered with Delhi Medical Council. Even the so called Diploma in Naturopathy and
 Yogic Science from All India Nature Cure Federation, Patparganj is ostensibly not a recognized 
 course from a recognized institution and does not entitle the plaintiff to call himself as a doctor.
 It has been further submitted that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 regulates modern system of 
 medicine (Allopathy) in the NCT of Delhi, the regulation of practice of profession in the modern 
 system of medicine is being done by statutory authority viz Delhi Medical Council constituted under
 the Delhi Medical Act, 1997. It is pertinent to mention here that for practicing in modern 
 scientific CS. No. 41/2015 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council & Ors. age 5
 of 11 system of medicine registration with the Delhi Medical Council is mandatory in the NCT of
 Delhi. Without registration, a person can not practice in the modern scientific system of medicine
 in the NCT of Delhi and is also liable for action under the Medical Council Act, 1997. The plaintiff
 has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. Hence, he is not entitled to the equitable
 relief of injunction. It has been stated that on 10.03.2008, the Delhi Medical Council received a
 complaint letter from one Sh. S.P. Rathore alleging the quacks mentioned therein including the
 plaintiff are practicing in the allopathic system of medicines without holding any recognized medical
 qualification. It was requested by the Delhi Medical Council to carry out an inspection/survey at
 their place to ascertain in which system of medicine the said individuals are practicing and to send
 the inspection report to the DMC within 15 days of receipt of the letter. It has been further stated
 that the inspection report in respect of the clinic mentioned that the said clinic was inspected on
 19.11.2008 and the plaintiff was stated to be practicing from the last 8¬9 years using allopathic 
 medicines. The said report was accompanied by the copy of registration of the plaintiff with Council
 of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Bihar. The same did not entitle the plaintiff to practice
 in Allopathic. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 09.01.2009 was issued to the plaintiff to stop
 practicing allopathic system of medicine forthwith and to appear before the Delhi Medical Council
 on 20.01.2009. The CS. No. 41/2015 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council &
 Ors. age 6 of 11 said show cause notice was returned back with the remark "left without 
 address/wrong address". The Delhi Medical Council again issued a show cause notice dated 17.03.2009
 to the plaintiff which again was returned back with the same remark. The plaintiff has committed
 the offence punishable under section 27 of the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997. Hence, the plaintiff
 is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 
4. Defendant no. 3 filed its written statement wherein it has been stated that there is no Central
 Act or Regulation to regulate the naturopathy system of medicine. Therefore, the defendants have
 no authority to issue any direction regarding publishing of the name of plaintiff or his clinic
 in the website of defendant no. 1. It has been submitted that the then Department of AYUSH now
 Ministry of AYUSH has issued guidelines to all the State Governments to enact comprehensive
 legislation for regulation of Naturopathy covering registration of practitioners, medical education
 etc. It has been stated that as per the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 i.e Delhi Medical Council
 has published the name of the clinic on their website. The defendant no. 3 has no role in issuing
 the orders regarding the publishing of the name of plaintiff or his clinic in the website of
 defendant no. 1. As such, it is for the defendant no. 1 to redress the grievance of the plaintiff.
 On bare perusal of the prayer of the plaintiff in the suit, it is evidently clear that the plaintiff
 has CS. No. 41/2015 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council & Ors. age 7 of 11
 wrongly sought relief from defendant no. 3. The issue raised in the suit does not come under the
 purview of defendant no. 3 and as such defendant no. 3 is not the concerned appropriate authority
 and can not provide any relief/reliefs to the plaintiff. 
5. On 06.06.2015, counsel for plaintiff submitted that defendant no. 2 be deleted from the array
 of parties. Although no formal order was passed but during the course of arguments, this fact
 was not disputed by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Hence, defendant no. 2 has been treated as
 deleted from the array of parties. Thereafter, on 11.09.2015, defendant no. 3 was deleted from
 the array of parties on the statement of counsel for plaintiff. Further on 15.10.2015 defendant
 no. 1 was proceeded ex¬parte for non appearance and plaintiff was directed to lead ex¬parte evidence. 
6. In plaintiff's ex¬parte evidence, plaintiff Dr. Sunil Dangwal examined himself as sole witness
 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the documents i.e copy of voter ID card
 as Ex.PW1/1, copy of electricity bill of the suit property as Ex.PW1/2, photograph of suit property
 as Ex.PW1/3, copy of diploma (DNYS) as Ex.PW1/4, copy of diploma (CMS and ED) as Ex.PW1/5, copy
 of migration certificate as Ex.PW1/6, Internet copy of website showing the name of the clinic
 is Mark A, copy of notification having number MCI¬203(1)/2004¬Regn./10/93 dated 21.04.2004 as 
 Ex.PW1/7, copy of Gazette published on 06.03.1997 as Ex.PW1/8, copy of CS. No. 41/2015 Dr. Sunil
 Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council & Ors. age 8 of 11 letter no. RI4015/25/96 dated
 25.11.2003 as Ex.PW1/9, copy of judgment for reference as Ex.PW1/10, copy of notice as Ex.PW1/11,
 postal receipts as Ex.PW1/12 (colly) and plaint as Ex.PW1/13. No other witness has been examined
 by the plaintiff and PE was closed on 17.11.2015. 
7. I have heard the arguments at bar advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, perused the written
 arguments filed on behalf of plaintiff and gone through the records. 
8. in this suit, the defendant no. 1 was proceeded ex¬parte after it had filed the written statement.
 Defendant no. 1 was the main defendant in the suit as the relief had been claimed against him.
 Defendant no. 2 and3 were deleted from the array of parties. It is well settled principle of law
 that even though the defendant is ex¬parte still the plaintiff is not absolved from its 
 responsibility to prove the case on merits. Plaintiff has to stand upon its own legs and he can
 not derive any benefits from either the absence of the defendant or the weakness of the defence. 
9. The plaintiff has sought the relief that defendants be directed to remove the name of the
 clinic of the plaintiff from the list of fake/incompetent clinics/doctors website as he is 
 a qualified diploma holder in Naturopathy and Yogic Science. The pleadings especially the 
 written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 shows that the plaintiff has been guilty of
 suppressing the material facts and has approached the Court with unclean CS. No. 41/2015 
 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council & Ors. age 9 of 11 hands. In its
 written statement, defendant no. 1 has stated in para no. 8 that on a complaint, it had 
 directed the CDMO (South) Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of NCT to carry out an 
 inspection of the clinic of the plaintiff which was done on 19.11.2008 and the plaintiff was
 found to be practicing from the last 8¬9 years using allopathic medicine. A show cause notice
 was issued to the plaintiff by it. The plaintiff had provided copy of his registration with 
 Council of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Bihar but was practicing in the modern 
 science (Allopathic). 
In reply to para 8 of the preliminary submission of ws, the denial was made by the plaintiff
 in his replication for the first time. These facts were not mentioned by the plaintiff in his
 plaint and disclosed the same for the first time in his replication. 
In my opinion the plaintiff has been guilty of suppressing the material facts from the 
knowledge of the Court. It is settled law that one he who seeks equity must do equity. The 
power of injunction is a discretionary relief and the Court can not use the discretion in favour
 of party who has not approached the Court with clean hands. 
10. Furthermore the plaintiff has not examined any official from the so called institution from
 where he has alleged to have received his diploma in Naturopathy and Yogic Science as well as
 diploma in Community Medical CS. No. 41/2015 Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical
 Council & Ors. age 10 of 11 Service and ED. It has not been proved on record whether such 
 institute exits or not or whether any diploma etc has been received by the plaintiff from them.
 Accordingly, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove on record the genuineness of his
 documents. 
11. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the plaintiff has miserably
 failed to prove his case on merits. The plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief
 of injunction as prayed for. The suit of the plaintiff, therefore, stands dismissed. No
 order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. 
Announced in the open Court                                                        (Hem Raj)
Today on February 9th, 2016                                                  ACJ/CCJ/ARC¬(SE)
                                                                          Saket Court, New Delhi 




CS. No. 41/2015  Dr. Sunil Dangwal Vs. The Registrar, Delhi Medical Council & Ors.  age 11 of 11
 
Supreme Court of India
Subhasis Bakshi & Ors vs West Bengal Medical Council & Ors on 14 February, 2003
Author: R Babu
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Shivaraj V. Patil
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  152 of 1994

PETITIONER:
Subhasis Bakshi	 & Ors.

RESPONDENT:
West Bengal Medical Council & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2003

BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. : 
"Thou shall not prescribe, but treat". Does this commandment stand the test of legal
 scrutiny? This is the stark and simple question to be decided in this case. 
The long-winded facts of this case read as follows: 
That about 337 persons, including the appellants had completed the diploma course
 of Community Medical Service in duly recognized institutions in the State of West 
 Bengal and were posted in different parts of the State by the Government of West Bengal.
 On October 15, 1980 vide Notification No. Health/MA/7076/5M-5/80 the Government of West
 Bengal made an amendment in the Statute of the State Medical Faculty by introducing 
 Article 6F under Part B, which reads verbatim as under: 
"6F: Students who will undergo and complete the requisite course of studies in 
Medicine/Medical Science (as defined and detailed in the Schedule to this article and
 hereinafter called as the said Regulations for the Diploma course in Community Medical
 Services) in Medical Institutions, duly recognized by the State Medical Faculty of West 
 Bengal, shall be admitted into examinations in the subjects laid down in the said 
 regulations and the students passing the examinations shall be granted Diploma with the
 abbreviation "Dip. C.M.S", by the Governing body of the aforesaid Faculty. 
The Governing Body of the aforesaid Faculty shall also maintain a Register of such Diploma
 holders with a view to regulating, supervising and restricting their practice for the present." 
The objective of the said Notification, as detailed therein, is as follows: " I. Objectives: 
i). To provide medical training to a group of personnel to man the Health Centers and 
Subsidiary Health Centers. 
ii). Emphasis is to be given on comprehensive Health Care of the Community including promotive,
 preventive and curative aspects. 
iii). A candidate after successfully completing the course of studies will act as a Team Leader
 of various categories of Field Workers. 
iv). Training in curative medicines is to be imparted in such a way that after completion of
 training the trainees can treat common diseases among rural population including communicable
 diseases, malnutritional states, snake bite, insecticidal poisoning etc. Instructions on 
 diseases requiring sophisticated treatment not practicable in Health Centers will be 
 restricted to the barest minimum. However, such candidates should learn to recognize sign 
 and symptoms of more serious diseases requiring special treatment at referral hospitals 
 (e.g., Sub-divisional or District Hospital) so that such patients may be sent early to 
 these institutions. 
v). The training in promotive and preventive aspect of Health Care including Family Planning
 and Child Care should be undertaken by actual participation in the field work under the 
 supervision of their teachers along with the field workers. 
vi). A substantial part of the training will be conducted in Health Centers where they
 will reside along with their teacher in each term of their course so that they are exposed
 to the field condition from the beginning of their course." 
On 23/6/1987, the Government of West Bengal issued a Corrigendum and the Diploma that was
 earlier known as 'Diploma in Medicine for Community Physicians' was rechristened as 
 'Diploma in Community Medical Service.' Apprehending that the re-naming would have a 
 detrimental effect on their rights, the appellants filed W.P. No.7052/89 in the Calcutta
 High Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on the 
 assurance given by the Government Pleader that the State was willing to award the 'Diploma
 in Community Medical Service' to the successful candidates. It was also assured by the State,
 in the said petition that it would provide jobs to such candidates in accordance with the 
 stated policy of the Government. The learned Single Judge of the High Court made it clear
 that the Diploma Holders will not have the right to private practice and that part of the
 order was not challenged by the appellants at all and entry in the register is only for 
 the right to prescribe medicines and issue certificates. 
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred an appeal
 before the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench assured that the 
 change in the nomenclature would not affect the Appellants right. The Division Bench 
 reiterated that "the persons holding the Diploma and employed to man the Health Centers
 and Subsidiary Health Centers would be competent to treat common diseases among rural
 population including communicable disease, malnutritional states, snake bite, insecticidal
 poisoning etc". The Division Bench also mentioned the stated Government policy on providing
 jobs to such Diploma holders. Upon this the High Court opined that in the light of the 
 clarifications made by and on behalf of the State Medical Faculty and the State, there
 should be no reason for the appellants to entertain any kind of apprehension with regard
 to their being able to perform functions and duties which they as are entitled to do 
 under the Regulations as amended vide notification dated October 10, 1980. Pertaining to
 the registration of names in the Register of Diploma holders, the High Court stated that
 the Register shall be prepared and will be maintained in accordance with and in terms of
 the Statute 6F and that necessary formalities in that regard will be completed on or before
 March 31, 1990. 
This judgment of the High Court was not complied with by the State. Contempt Application was
 filed on September 7, 1990 in the High Court. By the time, on November 21, 1990 Director of
 Health Services, West Bengal vide Order No. HPH/10 'S-3-90/1512 issued Job Description of
 Community Health Service Officers. While hearing the Contempt Application on November 23,
 1990 the High Court accepted the assurance given by the Secretary to the Government in 
 Department of Family Welfare in the presence of Secretary of the Medical Faculty and the
 State Medical Council that the Government would issue fresh instructions to the Job 
 Description of Community Health Officers. These fresh instructions, were assured, would 
 be issued in accordance with the earlier judgment of the Bench. On December 10, 1990 the
 aforementioned description was partially modified vide Order No. HPH/10-'S-3-90/1629. 
 By virtue of this Order, the Diploma Holders were allowed to treat common diseases among 
 rural population as provided in the sub-clause (iv) of the objectives to the Notification
 dated October 15, 1980 and it was also mentioned that item No 17 in the Notice issued under
 No 1512 dated November 21, 1990 was treated as omitted. Another Order No HPH/10-'S-3-90/1630
 was issued on the same day which says that the Diploma Holders were "not permitted to issue
 Death Certificate, Sickness Certificate or Medical Fitness Certificates required for Court
 cases" and also directed that the treatment advice and prescription made by them were to be
 counter signed by the BMO or the MO-in-charge. While on March 6, 1991 vide Memo No. 
 HPH/10-'S-3/90/222 the Order No HPH/10-'S-3-90/1630 dated December 10, 1990 was cancelled.
 By Order dated May 7, 1991 the High Court disposed of the contempt proceeding by making the
 direction to the Government that they would maintain a register of the Diploma Holders in 
 terms of the Article 6F of the original Notification. It is also clarified by the High Court
 in the Order that the "Registration by the State Medical Faculty will authorize the Community
 Health Service Officers to continue to discharge their duties as specified in the duty chart
 in the Health Centers/Subsidiary Health Centers as long as they are in service." Upon this
 high note, the first round of litigation before the Calcutta High Court was concluded. 
At this juncture, by virtue of the order of the High Court, the appellants had obtained the
 right to treat common diseases among rural population including communicable diseases, 
 malnutritional states, snake bites, insecticidal poisoning etc. But their grievance is 
 that the consequential right of issuing certificates of sickness or death, prescriptions etc.
 was taken away by Notification No. HPH/10- 'S-3-90/1630 dated November 21, 1990. It is also 
 the case of the appellants that item no 17 of the said notification was cancelled. Challenging
 the denial of 'consequential rights to treat' such as right to issue prescription or 
 certificates of sickness or death, the second round litigation was initiated. 
The appellants anchored their case on a Notification No. 1076-Medical dated May 17, 1915 
issued by the then Financial Department, Government of Bengal. The relevant portion of the
 said Notification is extracted hereunder: 
"In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Section 18 of the Bengal Medical Act,
 1914 (Bengal Act, VI of 1914) and on the recommendation of the Bengal council of Medical
 Registration, the Governor in Council is pleased to direct that a title, certificate of
 qualification, Diploma or license granted by the Governing Body of the State Medical 
 Faculty, to any person shall subject to the provisions referred to in the said Clause
 entitled the holder of such title, certificate of qualifications, Diploma or License 
 to have his name entered in the Register of Registered practitioners maintained under
 Section 15 of the said Act." 
By virtue of this Notification read with Sections 15 and 18 of the Bengal Medical Act
, 1914, the appellants argues that they are entitled to enter their names in the Register
 of Registered Practitioners maintained by the Bengal Council of Medical Practitioners.
 Urging this a Writ Petition was filed before the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High
 Court. The Petition was allowed in favour of these appellants, subject to the condition 
 that they are not allowed to pursue Private Practice and making it clear that their only
 right is to prescribe medicines and issue certificates and this part of the order became
 final. 
Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the Bengal Medical
 Council preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. The Division
 Bench allowed the appeal and set-aside the decision of the learned Single Judge. There are
 two main reasons given by the Division Bench to vacate the Writ. They are - (1). "The sine
 qua non for the application and operation of Section 18 are- (a) satisfaction of the 
 Council that any particular qualification is sufficient guarantee for the requisite 
 knowledge or skill for efficient medical practice, (b) report to that effect by the Council
 to the Government, and (c) direction by the Government, on acceptance of such report, by
 notification in the Official Gazette. We do not think that in 1915, the Council could in
 any way be satisfied as to the quality or merit of a course or qualification introduced 
 in 1980 and could report its satisfaction by some sort of divine prescience or foresight.
 Not do we think that the Government could by a Notification recognize or approve a course
 or certificate or qualification in futuro or in vacuo, in respect of a course or 
 certificate which was not in existence at the date of Notification." (2). Relying on A.K
 Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 1310 it was found that 'a person can practice 
 in allopathic system of medicine in a state or in the country only if he possesses a 
 recognized medical qualification' and since the appellants doesn't possesses the required
 qualification, it was held that their names could not be included in the Medical Register.
 Thus this appeal by special leave. 
The only relief, which these appellants are seeking, is the protection of their 
'consequential rights to treat' such as issuing prescriptions or sickness or death 
certificates. As a matter of fact the respondents do not dispute the validity of 
Notification No. Health/MA/7076/5M-5/80 dated October 15, 1980. It is by virtue of 
this Notification that the appellants were having the right to treat. Now the only 
question for consideration is whether the Appellants, who are having the right to 
treat could issue prescription or sickness or death certificates? 
In this context it is worthwhile to discuss Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab,
 (1998) 7 SCC 579. In this case the validity of Notifications issued by State Governments
 of Punjab and Rajasthan, under Rule 2(ee)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945
 whereby the Governments declaring some vaids/ hakims as persons practicing modern 
 medicines were challenged. Upholding the validity of the Notifications and the said Rule,
 this Court held that, for the purpose of Drugs Act "what is required is not the 
 qualification in modern scientific system of medicine but a declaration by a State
 Government that a person is practicing modern scientific system and that he is registered
 in a Medical Register of the State". In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand, this Court also clarifies that
 there could be two registers for medical practitioners i.e, Indian Medical Register and 
 State Medical Register. As far as the State Medical Registers are concerned the concerned
 State Government according to the rules will determine the required qualification. While
 recognizing the rights of vaids or hakims to prescribe allopathic medicines, this Court
 also took into account of the fact that qualified allopathic doctors were not available
 in rural areas and the persons like vaids / hakims are catering to the medical needs of
 residents in such areas. Hence the provision which allows them to practice modern 
 medicine was found in the public interest. In this context Dr. Mukhtiar Chand holds that
 "It is thus possible that in any State, the law relating to registration of practitioners
 of modern scientific medicine may enable a person to be enrolled on the basis of the 
 qualifications other than the 'recognized medical qualification' which is a prerequisite
 only for being enrolled on the Indian Medical Register but not for registration in a 
 State Medical Register. Even under the 1956 Act, 'recognized medical qualification' is
 sufficient for that purpose. That does not mean that it is indispensably essential. 
 Persons holding 'recognized medical qualification' cannot be denied registration in any
 State Medical Register. But the same cannot be insisted for registration in a State 
 Medical Register. However, a person registered in a State Medical Register cannot be 
 enrolled on the Indian Medical Register unless he possesses 'recognized medical 
 qualification'. This follows from a combined reading of Sections 15(1), 21(1) and 23.
 So by virtue of such qualifications as prescribed in a State Act and on being registered
 in a State Medical Register, a person will be entitled to practice allopathic medicine 
 under Section 15(2)(b) of the 1956 Act." Based on this reasoning this Court partially 
 overruled A.K Sabhapathy, which earlier ruled that a person could practice allopathic 
 medicine only if he possess a recognized medical qualification. In Medical Council of 
 India & Another v. State of Rajasthan and Anr, (1996) 7 SCC 731 (2 judges), it was 
 observed that "It would thus be clear that the basic qualification of MBBS as a primary
 qualification is a precondition for a candidate for being registered in the State Medical
 Register maintained by the State Board". Identical view expressed in the decision in 
 A.K Sabhapathy on the same point having been overruled, this view in Medical Council of
 India vs. State of Rajasthan [supra] also stands impliedly overruled. 
Coming back to the case in hand, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment relied upon
 A.K Sabhapathy to deny the appellants' right to prescribe medicines or to issue sickness
 or death certificates and held that the appellants do not possess the 'recognized medical
 qualification'. In the light of the ruling in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand this view of the Division
 Bench cannot be sustained. Therefore there is no bar to register the name of the appellants
 in the State Medical Register. 
Now the only issue for consideration is whether the right to issue prescription or 
certificates could be treated as a part of right to treat. In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand it 
was pointed out that "because prescribing a drug is a concomitant right to practice
 a system of medicine. Therefore, in a broad sense, the right to prescribe drug of a
 system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practice that system of medicine.
 In that sense, the right to prescribe an allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from
 the claim to practice allopathic medicine." The appellants are validly holding the right
 to treat certain diseases. So their right to issue prescriptions or certificates cannot
 be detached from their right to treat. Such right to issue certificates or prescriptions
 is imbibed in the right to treat. One cannot and shall not be separated from the other.
 Once the right to treat is recognized, then the right to prescribe medicine or issue 
 necessary certificate flows from it. Or else the right to treat cannot be completely 
 protected. Hence, even assuming for a moment that the 1915 Notification is not there, 
 still the appellants' right to prescribe medicine cannot be denied. In that view of the
 matter, the order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge
 is restored. 
Therefore, the respondents shall make necessary arrangements to include the names of all
 the concerned Diploma holders in the State Medical Register for the limited purpose 
 indicated therein within a period of six months from today. The appeal is allowed
 according.

 
 
Home  :   About Us  :   Courses  :   Facilities  :   Study center  :   Download  :   Enrolment Verification  :   Result  :   Contact Us Maintained & Designed by EEPL ADMIN