ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Madras high court allows unqualified medical practitioners

In a significant judgment, the Madras high court has allowed unqualified medical practitioners in Tamil Nadu to practise modern medicine with certain conditions, including the addition of the suffix 'UMP' to the nameplates and letterheads used by them.

Justice S S Subramani passed the order while disposing of the writ petitions filed by the All India Association of Private Medical Practitioners and others, seeking to regularise themselves and to restrain the police from interfering with their right to practise modern medicine.

The petitions were filed in the wake of the state-wide drive by the police against quacks last month following the death of a boy who was treated by a quack in Madras.

The judge said a clear reading of the July 1986 circular issued by the Centre to the state governments showed that it was intended to regulate UMPs and impose certain strict conditions on them.

He said the Centre had taken note of the fact that many persons practising medicine were not qualified but had been in the field since 1950 onwards, and had been rendering service in rural areas where qualified medical practitioners were not available.

He said the UMPs should not practise surgery, obstetrics or radial therapy in any form and should not prescribe any drugs included in schedules G, H and L, the cosmetics rules, 1945, and other dangerous drugs.

The judge directed the UMPs not to use the word 'Dr' or similar words in Indian languages before or after their names. Instead, they should add the word 'UMP' after their names or its translated version in Indian languages.

This was necessary as otherwise, illiterate people in the rural areas might mistake them for qualified doctors. The public should know that the UMPs constituted a distinct category. The name boards with these details should be placed in a conspicuous place at the premises where they were practising.

The judge said the UMPs should maintain a register of patients treated by them and details of their ailments and drugs prescribed. The register should be open for inspection by the district collector or any person duly authorised by him not below the district resident medical officer rank.

The UMPs should inform the collector their place of practice and the field in which they had gained experience.

Giving the UMPs two months to comply with the conditions, the judge said the police should not obstruct the UMPs from discharging their professional duties once the conditions were fulfilled.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report