Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21.On merits, he invites me to the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Rules of 2018 notified in exercise of its powers under Section 14(1) of the Act to point out that EECP and Cartography are not found in Annexure-I Part VIII, which deals with conditions for operation of clinical laboratories. He states that insofar as Cardiology is concerned, the Rules contemplate only Echo Cardiography (ECG) for which the qualification prescribed is any qualified Doctor, preferably a Cardiologist. The gist of this argument is that for running EECP and Electro Cartogram, there are no rules governing the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 03:02:49 pm ) and the demand by the second respondent that there should be a Cardiologist, who should perform this duty, goes beyond the prescription in the Rules and therefore, ultra vires.

(iv)Proceeding further, Mr.Shaji Bino argues that the defence raised by the petitioner that two cardiologists are constantly available for consultation, is a false statement, as it is clear from the statement made by the petitioner himself to the Committee on 19.02.2025. He relies upon the answers given to question Nos.9 and 10 to urge that no records were maintained by the petitioner to show that Dr.Arthanaree and Dr.Venkatraman had been present in the hospital for the purpose of consultation being carried on by the patients. Hence, he states that the petitioner has been giving specialist treatment in cardiology, without cardiologists.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 03:02:49 pm ) Examination of Dr.Muralidharan and Non-examination of Dr.Arthanaree and Dr.N.B.Venkatraman:

47.It is the specific case of the petitioner that whenever a patient required specialist consultation, he used to get in touch with Dr.Arthanaree, M.D., D.M (Cardiology), Senior Interventional Cardiologist of Apollo Hospital, Chennai and with Dr.N.B.Venkatraman, M.D., D.M (Cardiology), Nagercoil. The Committee, which was constituted in the afternoon of 19.02.2025, did not take the effort to contact either of these two cardiologists before concluding that the petitioner is indulging in a specialised field of medicine without the assistance of those possessing the requisite and eligible qualifications. When the petitioner has been accused of having been treated patients without an expert advice and when the petitioner states that he has been taking online consultations with the aforesaid persons, the least that the Committee should have done is to enquire into the factual scenario prior to concluding the same.
48.The records produced by Mr.Shaji Bino show that the second respondent did not even make an attempt to consult an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 03:02:49 pm ) independent cardiologist to arrive at a conclusion. He received an opinion from Dr.Muralidharan, who was a part of the Committee, which enquired the petitioner on 19.02.2025 to conclude that Cartography and EECP treatment require the expertise of a cardiologist. Even a fig leaf, to cover the confirmation bias, has not been adopted by the second respondent.