Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: April 30, 2022 at 08:42 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian of the Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Madras High Court Bench, vide which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition filed by the students who had not gone clinical training and were declined the provisional registration required by them to undergo internship.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the National Medical Commission (NMC) cannot grant provisional registration to medical students who have not completed clinical training in a foreign MBBS course.
The contentions on the part of the Appellant:
1. That the clinical training cannot be imparted through online mode as it is the actual training involving diagnosis and interactions with the patients and there cannot be any online clinical training which will satisfy the requisite condition of the Screening Regulations.
The respondent vehemently opposed the appellant by contending:
1. That acquiring primary medical qualification from the Foreign Medical Institute was acceptable for grant of registration.
The Apex Court stated that the students have finished their academic curriculum but have not gathered all the practical information needed since the knowledge has been gathered on a virtual platform.
That the question here is whether or not the clinical training provided to students in a foreign university is even binding on NMC.
That it can be observed here that the NMC is not bound to grant registration required by the foreign student who has not gathered the full practical knowledge required.
“We find that the Commission 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”, the court said.
That the Apex Court stated that according to The Act and the Screening Regulations, these foreign MBBS courses are made for students to study at these foreign locations and then come back to practice medicine in India only.
That these regulations have been made keeping in mind the interest of Indian citizens and health infrastructure.
That the errors of the earlier regulations have now been resolved by the regulations introduced in 2021 but not retrospectively.
“The courses are designed in such a way to attract students to undertake admission in the Foreign Institutes so that such students, become eligible to practice medicine in India. The very framework of the Regulations was compromising the interests of the Indian nationals and the health infrastructure in India. However, the malice has been corrected by the 2021 Regulations but such Regulations are not applicable to the students who have taken admission in the Foreign Institutes prior to 18.11.2021.”, The Court said.
That the Apex Court stated that the Screening examination is based upon Optical Mark Reader (OMR) answers and does not correlate with any practical training.
That to grant provisional registration to students without practical training would be putting the life of the citizens at risk.
“Without practical training, there cannot be any Doctor who is expected to take care of the citizens of the country. Hence, the decision of the appellant not to grant provisional registration cannot be said to be arbitrary.”, The Court said.
That the Apex Cout further stated that Apart from the 12 months of internship, the bench also disapproved the High Court’s view that two months of training in China would suffice for provisional registration in place of three months.
That furthermore Courts aren’t experts in determining academic curriculums or the clinical training requirements that must be met by students.
That the Apex Court further decided for the students in question that not allowing these young students to undergo training would waste their effort and potential and that their services should be made of some use.
That the students in question shall undergo the training program under the institutions recognized NMC.
“…such national resource cannot be permitted to be wasted which will affect the life of young students, who had taken admission in the foreign Institutes as part of their career prospects. Therefore, the services of the students should be used to augment health infrastructure in the country. Thus, it would be necessary that the students undergo actual clinical training of such duration and at such institutes which are identified by the appellant(NMC)and on such terms and conditions, including the charges for imparting such training, as may be notified by the appellant(NMC).”, the court said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned the judgment of the High Court of Madras Bench, stating that the directions for the NMC:
i) to frame a scheme as a one time measure within two months to allow the student and such similarly situated students who have not 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.
ii) It shall be open to the appellant to test the candidates in the scheme so framed in the manner within the next one month, which it considers appropriate as to satisfy that such students are sufficiently trained to be provisionally registered to complete an internship for 12 months.