” The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to another place which is not registered” – Hon. Bombay High Court. In short, One Machine – One Place – One Registration. In its recently reported judgment of Dr. Deepak Sane V/s. The state of Maharashtra, 2017(1) Mh.L.J.379, W.P. no.2995/2015, The Division Bench at Nagpur held so.
Facts in short :
- The petitioner is the leading Medical Practitioner in Nagpur and dealing exclusively with Heart Treatment. He is required to use the 2D Echo Colour Doppler Machine for Treating his patients and for treating the patients he requires to visit the ICCU at different Hospitals.
- IT was the case of the petitioner that the needy patients who cannot come to his clinic, for them he has to carry his 2D Echo machine, which is duly registered under the provisions of PCPNDT Act.Therefore he applied to the concerned authorities for getting permission to move the said machine at different places, but same was rejected and hence the matter came up before High Court.
- The Petitioner relied upon the earlier Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Percy Jilla V/s. The state of Maha. W.P. No.2871/2012, decided on 30/11/2015, wherein the Cardiologist was allowed to use 2D echo machine outside the premises and it was further observed that merely because petitioner’s wife is a Gynecologist, who can be subjected to the provisions of PCPNDT Act, the specialists from other fields cannot be prohibited from using such machine
- It was the stand of the Government that Mobile machine is also to be registered separately and it was argued that in the judgment of Dr. Percy, this aspect was not considered.
- After hearing of the parties on merits, it was held that obligation or prohibition of sex selection is not only against the Medical Practitioner but on everybody U/Sec.3-A.
- Further, the law is very clear that machines, which have potential to be used for sex determination, can be used only in registered establishments with other formalities.
- The judgment of Dr. Percy was also distinguished on facts and held to be not applicable.
- However, in the present case, the Petitioner was granted leave to move a necessary application for registration, which was to be decided according to the law.
This is an important judgment. Thus portable machines, if it is to be used at other places, have to be registered accordingly. In Dr. Percy’s case, an affidavit was filed by the Cardiologist doctor that he would not use Convex Sector probe, which is used by Sinologists / Gynecologists and plus the silent observer was also installed.
Thanks and Regards,
Adv. Rohit Erande Pune.