A wrong medical certificate by a clinic causing loss of job opportunity in Saudi Arabia; Deficiency in services held

A case before Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has become a much talked issue because of serious implications causing to consumer just because of not adhering the set norms under The Clinical Establishments (Registration And Regulation) Act, 2010 which is a central act.Gulshan Medicare a clinic registered under the above act issued a wrong certificate to one Manoj Chacko “EX-RAY UNFIT”which resulted into loss of job opportunity to the complainant in Saudi Arabia. Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission confirmed the order by District commission holding Gulshan Medicare deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practices

Gulshan Medicare V/S Manoj Chacko

First Appeal No a/116/2017 decided on 1.12.2022

                                                                                    Dr Prem Lata

Facts leading to dispute

The complainant was employed in Saudi Arabia and came on leave for 15 days on 21.8.2013 There was some delay in his return and with the result he was given new visa and now he was to obtain medical certificate after check-up. He contacted Gulshan Medicare which is approved medical centre as per norms of Gulf –operation Council, States authorised to conduct mandatory medical check up to those who are seeking employment in GCC countries

Check-up was done on 21.11.2013 by making payment of Rs 4200/- and ex ray showed a right upper zone fibrosis which is bar for entry into Gulf countries the certificate was verified the chest ex-ray report it was issued by a qualified radiologist who was stationed at Bombay and not available to sign the report.Complaintant finding report as unfit contacted Dr p Sukumaran a pulmonologist Bharat Hospital Kottayam for a second opinion He certified that complainant not having any evidence of any active respiratory disease clinically and radio logically .Complainant requested to review the report ,even his employer also made a request to look into the matter again which was also not accepted

Complainant filed consumer complaint before District commission Ernakulum alleging clinic issued unfit certificate with ulterior motive to help getting visa to someone else.

Disputant issues

1.      Certificate does not contain signature and seal of doctor –remarks on certificate shows “ray unfit”

2.      Job of complainant written plumber whereas he was male nurse

3.      Certificate was not issued as per guidelines prescribed in act 2010 minimum standard of facilities and services to be provided by medical imaging services (Diagnostic Centre)

4.      Qualified doctors /radiologist was not available at the centre when test conducted ,they were stationed elsewhere and report was issued but not signed

5.      A crucial document like medical report while giving negative or unfit certificate needs to be carefully checked .In the present case even other opinion or employers request to review was turned down by the clinic  

District Consumer commission ordered on 13 .11.2016 holding clinic deficient in services and imposed Rs one lac as compensation to the complainant

The matter is challenged before the State commission All the documents produced by the parties are carefully examined by the state commission for coming to some logical end.

 Dr P Sukumaran is pulmonologist who found that complainant complainant not having any evidence of any active respiratory disease clinically and radio logically the relevant provisions of the Act related to the duties and responsibilities of the clinic are also checked

Art 16(6)’guarantee that medical fitness certificate given to the expatriates should be authenticated and validated ‘

Article 16(11) All issued certificates will be stamped with the seal of the centre after a medical examination has been carried out

Evidently report was neither stamped with seal nor signed by the doctor, hence its authentication or validation becomes under question

Further requirement under section 4.3 regarding establishment equipped with qualified radiologist or related medical practitioner for interpretation of report was also  not fulfilled and it was found that the doctor who examined the report was not available in Ernakulum but was stationed at Mumbai .It could not be proved that qualified doctor or radiologist was present at the centre where test was conducted It was more important o re check the report when it is unfit and likely to cause loss of job opportunity of the candidate if by any reason some mistake has occurred

State commission confirmed the order made by District Commission holding clinic deficient in services

Intervention by HC of Delhi on necessary qualification and procedure for signing reports under the Act

It is relevant to mention that an issue was raised before the High court of Delhi regarding qualification of radiologists and doctors signing reports under this act

High Court of Delhi issues notice to Health Ministry in a writ petition on amending Rules, 2020, of the Clinical Establishment Act, 2010

A Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Prateek Jalan and Chief Justice DN Patel of issued notice on 17^th December 2020 to Health Ministry after it received a writ petition filed against the amendments made in the Rules, 2020, of the Clinical Establishment Act, 2010 Bench

Dr.Rohit Jain filed a writ petition before the High court of Delhi praying a direction to declare the Clinical Establishment (Central Government) Amendment Rules, 2020, of the Clinical Establishment Act, 2010 ultra-vires.These amended Rules allow Masters of Science or Ph.D. degree holders working at diagnostic laboratories as technicians, to sign and authenticate medical reports without the counter signature of a qualified MBBS or MD in Pathology. Every test report is a medical report requiring application of mind/interpretation/diagnosis at the first instance, hence less than MBBS or MD qualification, none should be allowed to sign the reports.

Arguments by the petitioner are-

1.      According to Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, only a registered medical practitioner can practice modern medicine, and that a medical laboratory report can only be countersigned by a registered medical practitioner with a post graduate qualification in pathology The qualifications of MSc or PhD are unregulated and cannot be equated with MBBS or MD in Pathology

2.      It is also pointed out that Supreme Court also in its 2017 judgment expressed the same views that according to Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 only a registered medical practitioner can practice modern medicine, and that a medical laboratory report can only be countersigned by a registered medical practitioner with a post graduate qualification in pathology.

Ref. High Court of Delhi

17^th December 2020

With the result of above notice from High court Delhi Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Issued Notification New Delhi, the 9th April, 2021 S.O. 1992(E).—

 

 

Previous

Next