Share This Post

Articles / News

Court Rules: BUMS Doctors Can’t Claim Knowledge about Allopathic Drugs

“(The Doctor ) having studied one particular system of medicine, cannot possibly, claim complete knowledge about the drugs of the other system of medicine. The transgression into other branches of medicine would tantamount to quackery.”.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed while allowing the Complaint thereby saddling compensation of few lacks of rupees on a B.U.M.S Doctor (Unani system of medicine ) for not giving proper treatment to the patient which affected, adversely, on the health of the patient.

The revision petition bearing no.4135/2014 was allowed on 01/09/2015. (TARA GULAB GUPTA V/s. AJIJUR REHMAN FIROZ AHMAD SHAIKH) (see the link http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FRP%2F4135%2F2014&dtofhearing=2015-09-01)

Facts in Short :

1.The daughter of the Complainant, Kumari Sarita, was taken to the opponent doctor as she developed a boil on her chin.

2.The Doctor gave her four white and four pink tablets. Ku. Sarita developed rashes and itching after taking tablets and therefore the Doctor gave her (Paracetamol and Brufen and Avil, 1cc and Dexamethasone 1cc ) injection on her right side waist and gave ointment for application and some more medicines.

3. After taking those tablets, Kumari Sarita developed stomach ache and had a fever and there was swelling at the part on which the injection was given. The cream was applied to Kumari Sarita’s legs and waist but the swelling increased.
Look at the faith on Doctor, Kumari Sarita was again taken to the same Doctor who prescribed her more medicines and after taking those medicines, Kumari Sarita suffered from vomiting, diarrhea, and pain in abdomen and legs and fever !!!!!.

4. The Doctor advised for the Blood test and told the father of Sarita that she had developed an infection and lastly she was admitted to Cardinal Gracia’s Memorial Hospital at Vasai and finally here deteriorated condition could be controlled.

5. The opponent Doctor rejected the allegations of improper treatment. He produced Medical Professional Degree of B.U.M.S of Pune University and he was registered under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners’ Act, 1961. The Majority State Commission was of the view that he was only allowed to practice Unani and not allopathy !!

Held :
1. The National Commission came to the conclusion that the Doctor was negligent in treating the patient and relied upon the report of Forensic Laboratory, Thane, which said that, “That Kum. Sarita Gupta has a boil on her knee due to poisonable contention and the patches and itching could have been caused due to the allergy of the tablet of )Paracetamol & Brufen). That it is seen that the injection provided at the place where it was swelling and proper care was not taken and hence it amounted to more swellings. That the lotion and the Malham are seen proper, however, at the time of giving the injection to the patient, no proper care was taken”.

2. It was also observed that there is no evidence on record that the petitioner was a qualified Doctor for skin diseases.
The National Commission relied on the judgments of Supreme Court on the point Quackery. In Poonam Verma Vs.Ashwin Patel & Ors., II (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) “A person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicines but practices in that system is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhanwar Kanwar Vs. R.K. Gupta & Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 252, has taken the view that wherein unauthorised medical treatment was administered, it amounted to unfair trade practice and administering allopathic medicine by a person who is qualified in Ayurvedic medicine was not approved by Hon’ble Apex Court and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs.5.00 lakhs to Rs.15.00 lakhs. !!

3. The Commission finally observed as the person who is authorized to practice under Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, is not all entitled and is not authorized to prescribe medicines, under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

This is a very important judgment to have a check on the rising evil of quackery in India…. This judgment is important from common man’s point of view. The Patient’ should check the background and credibility of the Doctor, else it may cost the patient his/her life….. For saving few hundred bucks, people are ready to compromise with their lives !!!

Thanks and Regards

Adv. Rohit Erande.
Pune.©

Share This Post

Founder of the desimedicos.com.
Doctor by profession & a techie by hobby.
MBBS from TNMC, Mumbai & MD Pharmacology from GSMC, Mumbai.
Follow me https://twitter.com/drpcoli

Start the Discussion