Chandigarh, August 24
Medical practitioners running treatment centres will have to provide “facilities for stabilising emergency medical condition of individuals brought to clinics”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear.
For, a Division Bench has upheld the provisions of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, which makes such a facility mandatory.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Dr Ramneek Singh Bedi and another medical practitioners having their clinics.
In their petition, they had sought declaration that the Act was ultra vires or beyond the powers of the Constitution.
They had contended the Act lays down the requirement of seeking registration, and provides for penal consequences in the absence of registration.
Quoting Section 12 (2) of the Act, the petitioners contended it requires “facilities to stabilise the emergency medical condition of any individual who is brought to clinical establishment”.
Taking up the matter, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice AK Mittal observed: "According to the counsel for the petitioners, the requirement of providing facilities for stabilisation of emergency medical condition of an individual is arbitrary and interference with the right of the petitioners to carry on their profession.
“The petitioners are only running their clinics and they may not be able to provide for facilities for stabilising the emergency medical condition of individuals who are brought to such clinics. Those who cannot provide such facilities cannot be debarred from carrying on their medical profession”.
After considering the submissions, the Bench asserted: “We are unable to accept the submission…. An individual medical practitioner may not be expected to do something impossible by providing facilities at par with a big hospital.
“There is, thus, no ground to interfere at this stage. The individual fact situation can be considered as and when the same arises. The writ petition is dismissed”.
Medical practitioners running treatment centres will have to provide “facilities for stabilising emergency medical condition of individuals brought to clinics”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear.
For, a Division Bench has upheld the provisions of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, which makes such a facility mandatory.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Dr Ramneek Singh Bedi and another medical practitioners having their clinics.
In their petition, they had sought declaration that the Act was ultra vires or beyond the powers of the Constitution.
They had contended the Act lays down the requirement of seeking registration, and provides for penal consequences in the absence of registration.
Quoting Section 12 (2) of the Act, the petitioners contended it requires “facilities to stabilise the emergency medical condition of any individual who is brought to clinical establishment”.
Taking up the matter, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice AK Mittal observed: "According to the counsel for the petitioners, the requirement of providing facilities for stabilisation of emergency medical condition of an individual is arbitrary and interference with the right of the petitioners to carry on their profession.
“The petitioners are only running their clinics and they may not be able to provide for facilities for stabilising the emergency medical condition of individuals who are brought to such clinics. Those who cannot provide such facilities cannot be debarred from carrying on their medical profession”.
After considering the submissions, the Bench asserted: “We are unable to accept the submission…. An individual medical practitioner may not be expected to do something impossible by providing facilities at par with a big hospital.
Interpretation of a statutory provision depends upon situation which may arise.
The provisions of the Act do not create any impossible situation so as to affect the right of the petitioners to practice the medical profession. “There is, thus, no ground to interfere at this stage. The individual fact situation can be considered as and when the same arises. The writ petition is dismissed”.
No comments:
Post a Comment