The Madras High Court has noted that individuals who obtain diplomas in other Indian medical systems and then practice allopathy are playing with the lives of innocent patients who visit them under a false belief that they are licensed as doctors.
The government should handle fraudulent doctors with iron hands, according to Justice Murali Shankar, who stated that they pose a threat to society. However, the court lamented the fact that the police chose to tolerate the imposition of a fee rather than take any further action.
The observations were made by the court in a petition submitted by Amrithlal, who operated the "AMK Medical Shop" and the "Surya Nursing Home." Refusing to return a fine amount received from him, Amrithlal had filed a petition against the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine's order.
In response to the petition, the State stated that officials chosen by the state to carry out the Government Order aimed at preventing the Corona outbreak had examined the nursing home and levied a fine for failure to comply with the directives provided by the State to manage the Corona outbreak. The State also created official messages and inspection-related photographs.
However, Amrithlal claimed that the entire inspection was a drama put on by the authorities to take money from him in violation of the law when he declined to pay the Health Inspector's demand of one lakh rupees. He proceeded by saying that he had kept this unlawful money demand a secret out of concern for the relatives of authorities .
The authorities and the court, however, agreed that the claim of an illegal demand for money was a mere afterthought and judged this to be extremely unlikely. The State set conditions to stop the spread of Covid-19, and the court stated that failing to comply with these requirements resulted in the imposition of the fine.
The court further stated that Amrithlal could not be blamed for the fine because he had not demonstrated that, at the time of the inspection, he had complied with the rules in the nursing home. Therefore, the court did not feel inclined to order the penalty amount to be refunded.
The court also noted a report from the Deputy Director of Health Services during the proceedings, which said that the petitioner was one of the individuals providing Allopathy therapy to patients without the required qualifications.
The court conveyed its concern with the behavior of the respondent authorities after learning that Amrithlal was providing allopathy treatment without a prescription, and that they had not taken any action against him. The authorities were also instructed by the court to find out if Amrithlal and other staff members at the nursing home possessed the required credentials and to take appropriate action otherwise.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Priyanka Pandey)