Madras High Court
Physiotherapists Development ... vs State Of Tamilnadu on 17 August, 2022
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.21225 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.21225 of 2014
MP No.1 of 2014
Physiotherapists Development Association,
(Regn No.40/2014), Represented by its Secretary
Dr.S.Rajasekar (PT),
Gayathri Complex,
Opp. To Government Arts College,
33/164, Cherry Road,
Salem 636 007 ....Petitioner
Vs.
1 State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the
Government Department of Health and Family
Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2 The Secretary,
Medical Council of India, Pocket 14, Sector 8,
Dwaraka Phase I New Delhi-110 077. ..Respondents
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P.No.21225 of 2014
of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaring that the sentence He
shall not use Dr before his name and prescribe drugs in the draft
Rule2 (e) to the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.338 Health and Family
Welfare Department of Tamilnadu dated 16.10.2008 with
amendments to G.O.Ms.No.281 Health and Family Welfare (Z1)
Department of Tamilnadu dated 09.09.2009 as unconstitutional
and ultravires to Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of
India.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramamoorthi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
Special Government Pleader
for R1
Ms.Subharanjani Ananth
Standing Counsel for R2
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed questioning the Government orders which prevents a physiotherapist from using the word “Dr” before their name.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P.No.21225 of 2014
2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:-
(D) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter titled as "PoonamVerma Profession from specialities.
versus Ashwin Patel, CA No.8856/1994, dated. 10.05.1996 has held that: "A person who does not have knowledge of a particular System of medicine but practices in that system is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan" in view of the above landmark judgment, it is stated that the person who possesses recognized qualification/knowledge of a particular system of medicine is only authorized to practice in that particular system of medicine. If a person practices in any other system of medicine of which he does not possess recognized qualification/ knowledge, then that person would be considered as a quack i.e. a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or a charlatan. There are three major systems of medicines in India i.e..(1) Allopathic or modern system of medicine, (2) Ayurvedic, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9 W.P.No.21225 of 2014 Siddha or Unani Tibb system of medicine and (3) Homeopathic system of medicine. Difference Central and State Legislations, Laws and Acts have been enacted for all the three systems of medicine. It is pertinent to mention herein that all the three systems of medicine do not allow crosspathy i.e., a person who has obtained a recognized qualification / knowledge of a particular system of medicine is only authorized to practice that particular system of medicine and not any other. Further, penal actions are also there if a person practices some other system of medicine of which he has not obtained a recognized qualification.
The persons who have recognized qualification as per the Council Act, 1956 and who are registered with the Indian Medical Council or State Medical Council as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are the persons who are allowed to practice modern system of medicine as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Similarly, the persons who have recognized qualification as per the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and who are registered with the Indian https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9 W.P.No.21225 of 2014 Medicine Central Council or the respective State Medicine Councils are the persons who are allowed to practice the medicine system of Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani. Also, the persons who have recognized qualification as per the Homoeopathy. Central Council Act and who are registered with the Homoeopathy Central Council or the respective State Councils are the persons who are allowed to practice the medicine system of Homoeopathy.
Accordingly, only the persons practicing modern system of medicine or AYUSH are allowed to use "Dr." before their name as they are the only persons who are termed as Doctors.
In view of the above, it is stated that the physiotherapist is not allowed to practice medicine and / or to prescribe drugs especially the Scheduled Drugs as mentioned in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act on their own as they do not possess recognized qualification as mentioned in Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Indian Medicine Central Council Act and Homoeopathy Medicine Central Council Act. Also, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9 W.P.No.21225 of 2014 they cannot claim themselves to be a specialist medical practitioner and by prefixing the word "Dr." with their name in their prescription. If the physiotherapists is doing the same, creating an impression on the patient that they are medical consultant which is an offence in the eyes of law and the said person is a Quack as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Government Advocate for 1st respondent and M/s.Subharanjani Ananth, learned counsel for 2nd respondent.
4. In the considered view of this Court a physiotherapist only provides a supportive treatment of Medicine and they cannot become the part of alternative system of medicine in order to confer the title of a Doctor which allows them to independently practice, diagonise and treat patients. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the title https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9 W.P.No.21225 of 2014 of a Dr. is only conferred on those persons who possess recognized qualification as per the Indian Medicine Central Council Act and who are registered before the concerned State Medical Councils.
5. In view of the above, a physiotherapist does not have the right to use Dr. as a prefix before the name and this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition.
6. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.08.2022 rka https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/9 W.P.No.21225 of 2014 To 1 State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the Government Department of Health and Family Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2 The Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwaraka Phase I New Delhi-110 077.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9 W.P.No.21225 of 2014 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J., rka W.P.No.21225 of 2014 17.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/9