Association Of Practising Pathologists vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Association of Practising Pathologists, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. Their grievance concerned alleged solicitation for medical tests by corporate laboratories and online health service aggregators, which they claimed violated prescribed regulations and rules. This practice, according to the petitioner, led to the degradation of the medical profession and loss of business reputation for bona fide pathologists. They contended that despite prior complaints to the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), no action was taken. The petitioner sought directions for respondents to take action against such solicitation, to make appropriate regulations to bar it completely, to ensure compliance with the code of medical ethics regarding the display of registration numbers, and to bring corporate entities and aggregators running services as a business under the GST regime.

Held

The Court noted that the National Medical Council (NMC) had succeeded the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI). In light of this change, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a detailed representation, along with all supporting documents, before the Secretary of the NMC within thirty days from the date of the order. The Court directed that upon receipt of such a representation, the Secretary of the NMC shall decide the matter and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were left open. The petition was disposed of with these observations, along with the pending application. No specific findings were made on the individual issues raised, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the NMC.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents (Union of India, National Medical Council, etc.) are obligated to take action against blatant solicitation, bait advertisements, offering discounts, and unsolicited communications for medical laboratory tests by corporate entities and online health service aggregators in violation of existing rules and regulations? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and enforcement of medical ethics and consumer protection laws). 2. Whether the respondents are required to frame specific regulations to completely bar such solicitation and advertising practices by corporate entities and online health service aggregators? (Question of law, concerning the regulatory powers of the NMC and other authorities). 3. Whether the respondents are mandated to ensure strict compliance with Clause 1.4.1 of the Code of Medical Ethics, requiring the mandatory display of a registered medical practitioner's registration number on all prescriptions, laboratory reports, certificates, and receipts? (Question of law and fact, concerning the enforcement of ethical guidelines). 4. Whether corporate entities and offline/online health service aggregators providing medical laboratory services should be brought under the GST regime, as they are operating as businesses rather than medical practices? (Question of law, concerning the classification of services for taxation). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the practices of corporate entities and aggregators violated existing legal regimes and that the National Medical Council (NMC) had an obligation to address their grievances. They relied on various documents to justify their claims. Revenue/State's arguments: Mr. T. Singhdev, representing the National Medical Council (NMC), opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.