Madras High Court
Annapoorana Medical College & Hospital vs Union Of India on 13 August, 2014
Author: V. Ramasubramanian
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.08.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P. No. 21816 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014 Annapoorana Medical College & Hospital, rep. By its Joint Registrar Mr.B. Dhanasekaran, Sankari Main Road, Ariyanoor, Salem 636 308. ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Union of India, rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001. 2. Medical Council of India, rep. By its Secretary, Pocket-14, Sector-B, Dwaraka Phase-I, New Delhi 110 077. ..Respondents Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent comprised in its Letter No. 34(41)(GEneral)/2014-15-Med./119236 dated 10.07.2014 as communicated in the letter No. U-12012/679/2014-ME(P-II) dated 15.07.2014 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's compliance report against the deficiencies pointed out by the team of inspectors of the 2nd respondent and pass orders on the petitioner's application of renewal of permission for admission of 4th batch of MBBS students, for the academic session 2014-15, within the time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner :: Mr.Satish Parasaran For Respondents :: Mr.S. Ramesh for R1 Mr.V.P. Raman for R2 O R D E R
The petitioner has come up with the writ petition challenging the order of the Central Government passed under Section 10 A of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, rejecting the request for renewal of permission for the 4th batch of 150 students of MBBS course for the academic year 2014-2015.
2. Heard Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Mr. S. Ramesh, Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent and Mr.V.P. Raman, learned counsel takes notice for the 2nd respondent.
4. Since I have already dealt with three writ petitions from Colleges, which are identically placed as the writ petitioner and rejected their writ petitions challenging identical orders, by a judgment passed today in W.P. Nos. 19131, 19253 and 19453 of 2014, I am confining myself only to the factual details, apart from the additional arguments advanced.
5. The petitioner was granted a letter of permission for starting a Medical College with a permitted annual intake of 150 students, with effect from the academic year 2010-2011. The College had its first renewal in 2011-2012; second renewal in 2012-2013 and third renewal in the year 2013-2014.
6. On 22.10.2013, the petitioner applied for fourth renewal for the academic year 2014-2015. However, the Medical Council of India sent a team of assessors only on 15.05.2014 and 16.05.2014, after a gap of nearly about 7 months. The inspection team pointed out the following deficiencies:
1. OPD: Dark room and Refraction room are located in the same room.
2. Audiometry & speech thereapy are located in the same room.
3. Wards: Space between 2 beds in Surgery wards is less than 1.5m required as per Regulations. Nurses' duty station is not placed in appropriate place in Surgery wards.
4. Clinical material: it is inadequate as under:
(a) Average daily major operative workload is only 3-4. Average daily minor operative workload is 3-4. On day of assessment, it was 3 & 2 respectively.
(b) There are only 10 normal deliveries/month , Caesarean sections are only 4/month. On day of assessment, no delivery normal or Caesarean was conducted.
(c) Plain X-rays: Daily average is only 30. Special investigations performed are very few.
5. ICUs: There was only 1 patient each in ICCU, SICU & Burns' ICU on day of assessment. There was no patient in NICU/PICU.
6. Anatomy Deparment: Lighting in museum is insufficient
7. Physiology Department: Equipment is inadequate in Clinical Physiology Laboratory.
8. Biochemistry Department: Preparation room is non-functional
9. Pathology Department: Space for teaching faculty is inadequate.
10. Microbiology Department: Service laboratory is non-functional. There was no equipment in some of the laboratories. Media preparation room is non-functional. Departmental research laboratory equipment is inadequate.
11. Community Medicine Department: Preparation Room is non-functional.
12. Shortage of Residents is 8.70% (i.e, 12 out of 138) as under:
(a) Senior Resident: 8 (Gen. Medicine: 2, Paediatrics: 1, Psychiatry: 2, Orthopaedics: 2, O.G.: 1)
(b) Junior Resident: 4 (Paediatrics: 1, Gen. Surgery: 1, Orthopaedics: 1, O.G.1)
13. Website: Academic activities are not uploaded.
14. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
7. On the basis of the report of the Inspection Team, the Executive Committee of the Council passed a resolution on 03.06.2014 recommending the rejection of the request of the petitioner for renewal. The same was communicated by the Medical Council of India to the Central Government on 10.06.2014.
8. The petitioner submitted a compliance report on 19.06.2014, pointing out that the report is factually incorrect and at any rate, the deficiencies pointed out were only minor in nature.
9. On 04.07.2014, the petitioner came to know through the website of the 1st respondent that the date for personal hearing was fixed on 07.07.2014. The petitioner's representative appeared for the personal hearing.
10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 4277 of 2014 before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 14.07.2014 directing the Medical Council to consider the compliance report and to pass orders on or before 15.07.2014.
11. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 15.07.2014 rejecting the request for renewal. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
12. Many of the grounds raised by the petitioner are identical to the grounds raised in the three writ petitions, which, I have dismissed by independent orders today, namely, W.P. Nos. 19131, 19253 and 19453 of 2014. Therefore, I am not dwelling in detail about the very same contentions.
13. In addition to the contentions raised in those writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, in paragraph 20 of its decision in Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital V. Union of India reported in (2011) 4 SCC 623. In the said paragraph, the Supreme Court indicated that if the Central Government was of the view that a College had complied with the requirements and was not at fault and also that it was not responsible, in any manner, for the delay in considering the application, the Central Government ought to have recorded the reasons and extended the time limit. In other words, the substance of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 20 was to the effect that where the delay is not attributable to the College, the College cannot be penalised.
14. But a careful look at paragraph 20 would show that the Central Government should first take a view that the College had complied with all the requirements and was not at fault. Here, the Central Government, has before it, the report of the Inspection Team, which visited the College on 15.05.2014 and 16.05.2014. Therefore, I do not think that any direction to overreach the time schedule can be given in the case on hand.
15. It is no doubt true that the Medical Council of India was in contempt of the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mridhul Dhar and Priya Gupta. But, that by itself, is not a ground for the Central Government to close its eyes to the deficiencies pointed out.
16. Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the deficiencies now pointed out are insignificant and that even the shortage of residents was only 8.70%, which is within the permissible limit prescribed by proviso (b) to Regulation 8.3(I).
17. But, I am unable to agree with the said contention. What is significant and what is not significant cannot be decided by this Court. The Supreme Court in MCI V. State of Karnataka reported in (1998) 6 SCC 131 has held as follows:
"...A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study...."
Therefore, this Court cannot actually sit in judgment over the decision of the inspection team, which comprises of experts and overrule the objections as insignificant or inconsequential. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.s are closed.
13.08.2014 nv (Note to Office: Issue order copy today (19.08.2014)) Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To
1. Union of India, rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
2. Medical Council of India, rep. By its Secretary, Pocket-14, Sector-B, Dwaraka Phase-I, New Delhi 110 077.
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.
nv W.P. No. 21816 of 2014 13.08.2014