MUMBAI: Bombay HC expressed its displeasure at the harassment caused by the authorities to medical practitioners under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act while granting relief to a Nashik doctor couple.
“This is just another case where medical practitioners are subjected to persecution causing a lot of harassment…The present case is a classic example where it can be said that the respondents have clearly misused their powers,” Justice Bharati Dangre said on September 7. She quashed and set aside the complaint and consequential proceedings against radiologist Dr Chandrashekhar Gattani and his wife Dr Shruti who works at Mayo Institute.
The complaint said on July 5, 2011, when the authorised officer visited Dr Gattani’s clinic, he was not there. Dr Shruti was operating an OPD with a sonography machine. She did not produce referral slips, consent forms, case cards etc. The clinic was sealed on grounds that an unauthorised person was operating it. The sonography machine was also sealed. On July 13, the clinic was unsealed after Dr Gattani submitted its registration certificate, sonography receipts and consent forms.
Justice Dangre said section 4 (3) contemplates conduct of pre-natal diagnostic tests by a qualified person. But the authority admittedly had no evidence to establish that Dr Shruti operated the machine. Also, the fact remained that the complaint was not based on material to establish that an unqualified person was operating the registered clinic. Dr Shruti said she attended the clinic on a call from an employee and was unable to offer documents.
Justice Dangre said “surprisingly” though the alleged incident took place in 2011, the complaint was filed after 3 years. “This speaks volumes,” she said, adding that the Act was enacted to prevent sex selection before or after conception and “requires strict implementation, but it does not warrant such obsolete exercises which but for harassment of the medical practitioners, do not yield any outcome.”
She noted that said medical superintendent and appropriate authority are authorised to inspect clinics to ensure compliance of the Act and rules. “However, it is surely not the prerogative of this authority to file frivolous complaints merely on the basis of assumptions and surmises, which would ultimately result into grave humiliation to the professionals and also have its adverse impact on their clinics, since it is possible that a blemish will tarnish their image and would adversely affect the medical profession as a whole,” she added.
Justice Dangre said “with only hope and trust” it is expected that in future the authority exercises “caution and avoid all such unwarranted accusations against” medical professionals. She did not impose costs on the authorities, expecting the observations “would deter them from acting in such an arbitrary manner.”
“This is just another case where medical practitioners are subjected to persecution causing a lot of harassment…The present case is a classic example where it can be said that the respondents have clearly misused their powers,” Justice Bharati Dangre said on September 7. She quashed and set aside the complaint and consequential proceedings against radiologist Dr Chandrashekhar Gattani and his wife Dr Shruti who works at Mayo Institute.
The complaint said on July 5, 2011, when the authorised officer visited Dr Gattani’s clinic, he was not there. Dr Shruti was operating an OPD with a sonography machine. She did not produce referral slips, consent forms, case cards etc. The clinic was sealed on grounds that an unauthorised person was operating it. The sonography machine was also sealed. On July 13, the clinic was unsealed after Dr Gattani submitted its registration certificate, sonography receipts and consent forms.
Justice Dangre said section 4 (3) contemplates conduct of pre-natal diagnostic tests by a qualified person. But the authority admittedly had no evidence to establish that Dr Shruti operated the machine. Also, the fact remained that the complaint was not based on material to establish that an unqualified person was operating the registered clinic. Dr Shruti said she attended the clinic on a call from an employee and was unable to offer documents.
Justice Dangre said “surprisingly” though the alleged incident took place in 2011, the complaint was filed after 3 years. “This speaks volumes,” she said, adding that the Act was enacted to prevent sex selection before or after conception and “requires strict implementation, but it does not warrant such obsolete exercises which but for harassment of the medical practitioners, do not yield any outcome.”
She noted that said medical superintendent and appropriate authority are authorised to inspect clinics to ensure compliance of the Act and rules. “However, it is surely not the prerogative of this authority to file frivolous complaints merely on the basis of assumptions and surmises, which would ultimately result into grave humiliation to the professionals and also have its adverse impact on their clinics, since it is possible that a blemish will tarnish their image and would adversely affect the medical profession as a whole,” she added.
Justice Dangre said “with only hope and trust” it is expected that in future the authority exercises “caution and avoid all such unwarranted accusations against” medical professionals. She did not impose costs on the authorities, expecting the observations “would deter them from acting in such an arbitrary manner.”
