LexTHE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION versus POOJA THANDU NARESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION v. POOJA THANDU NARESH & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2950-2951 of 2022) APRIL 29, 2022 [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Medical Education: Eligibility Requirement for Taking Admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 – Online Clinical Training – Provisional registration declined on the ground that the student had not completed the ninth semester in part and tenth semester completely – Clinical training for tenth semester was done online – Whether the degree granted by the Foreign Institute even in respect of clinical training through online mode is binding on the Appellant- Commission and whether the student has to be provisionally registered – Appellants argued that clinical training cannot be imparted through online mode as it is the actual training involving diagnosis and interactions with the patients – Respondents contended that acquiring primary medical qualification from the Foreign Medical Institute was acceptable for grant of registration as per Regn.2(c) read with Regn.2(e) – Held: Regn.4(3) makes it mandatory that a candidate should have studied for the medical course at the same institute located abroad for the entire duration of the course – Appellant is not bound to grant provisional registration to the student who has not completed the entire duration of the course from the Foreign Institute including the clinical training – Without practical training, there cannot be any doctor who is expected to take care of the citizens of the country. Constitution of India: Right to Equality – Held: Certain students having been granted provisional registration will not confer any right to the student to claim provisional registration so as to undergo the internship – There cannot be any equality in illegality. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:1. The student admittedly has not completed clinical training which was part of the curriculum in the tenth semester, [2022] 17 S.C.R. 344 344 A B C D E F G H 345 may be she has not completed part of clinical training in the ninth semester as well as per the curriculum. [Para 14][356-B] 2. The Eligibility Regulations are to ensure that a student meets the minimum eligibility condition as per the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, but after completing the curriculum, a candidate has to qualify the Screening Test, provided the entire duration of the course has been completed at the same institute located abroad. The question to be examined is as to whether the degree granted by the Foreign Institute even in respect of clinical training is binding on the appellant and the student has to be provisionally registered. The appellant is not bound to grant provisional registration to the student who has not completed the entire duration of the course from the Foreign Institute including the clinical training. [Para 15][356-C-D] 3. No doubt, the pandemic has thrown new challenges to the entire world including the students but granting provisional registration to complete internship to a student who has not undergone clinical training would be compromising with the health of the citizens of any country and the health infrastructure at large. [Para 16][356-E] 4. The argument that certain students have been granted provisional registration will not confer any right with the student to claim provisional registration so as to undergo the internship. There cannot be any equality in illegality. [Para 20][356-B] 5. The Appellant is directed to frame a scheme as a one time measure within two months to allow the student and such similarly situated students who have not actually completed clinical training to undergo clinical training in India in the medical colleges which may be identified by the Appellant for a limited duration as may be specified by the Appellant, on such charges which the Appellant determines. [Para 25][359-B-C] Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 468: [2017] 13 SCR 921 – relied on. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION v. POOJA THANDU NARESH & ORS. A B C D E F G H 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R. Medical Council of India v. J. Saai Prasanna and Ors. (2011) 11 SCC 748 : 2011 (6) SCALE 400; Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 745 : [1995] 1 SCR 126 – referred to. Case Law Reference (2011) 11 SCC 748 referred to Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.