In order to prescribe the minimum standards of facilities and services available to them, a clear objective for registration and regulation of clinical establishments was established in the 2010 Clinical Establishment (Registration & Regulation) Act so that a mandate for improving public health under Article 47 of the Constitution may be met. Therefore, if, on the basis of a forged and unrecognised degression and diploma that has been established and still permitted to operate the clinical establishment, the purpose of the Act itself for which it was enacted is certainly frustrated and cannot be continued, this was referred by Justice H.C Mishra and Justice Rajesh Kumar of the Jharkhand High Court, in the matter of Rani Seva Sadan versus State of Jharkhand [ L.P.A. No.82 of 2019 ]
This order was passed for the facts that the establishment in charge of the appellant is a medical clinic established by an MBBS-graduated Dr R.L. Jaiswal. It was granted certification for medical services, such as Hospital, Polyclinic and Pathology under the allopathic system of medicine, L.P.A.No 82 of 2019 on the 22.09.2013 as a clinical institution under Section 15 of The Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, (hereafter referred to as the “Act”). The certificate was valid for one year following the date it was issued. The certificate of registration was not subsequently renewed by the establishment of the petitioner and complaints were also lodged against the establishment of the petitioner on the portal of the Hon’ble Minister of State. The establishment was inspected by an inspection team led by Garhwa, the additional Chief Medical Officer, on 30.10.2017. One Dr D.D. Vishwakarma was detected at a clinic and it was informed that the clinic registered for Dr R.L. Jaiswal was absent from the clinic as he was in Bihar. There was a Dr D.D. Vishwakarma name sheet in the clinical facility with his qualification as a general physician for MBBS (Alternative Medicine). This grade was not a valid MBBS degree in alternative medicine in MBBS. Dr D.D.Vishwakarma has also found himself in the clinical facility running the pathology laboratory and produced the medical laboratory diploma from the Central Kolkata Institute of Medical and Technological Research. The Institute was also not an established institution and was therefore found to forge the diploma. The establishment was therefore sealed on the basis of the forged diplomas and degree that the establishment of the petitioner was managed by a person whose name was not even registered.
The Council of State constituted under section 8 of the Act, which held a hearing on 26.09.2018, preferred an appeal against that order. This order was issued. Following listening to both parties, the impugned order adopted by the Appellant Authority dated 09.10.2018 imposed on the establishment, on the basis of the aforesaid illness, a penalty of Rs.50,000/- as laid down in Section 40(1) of the Act and legal action against the persons in the clinic was taken on account of the forged degree. The L.P.A. No. 82 of 2019 was further ordered to be opened only after the fresh registration.
The petitioner establishment favoured a written request before this Court, which was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 5542 from 2018, against the order issued by the Appellant Authority. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Single Judge, the written application was rejected on 07.01.2019. The main challenge to the Appellate Authority’s order was that the clinical institution of the petitioner was screened and not allowed a hearing.
The findings of the court were it is also not in dispute, rather it is an admitted fact that the degree in MBBS (Alternative Medicine) is no degree in the eyes of law and as such displaying any such degree on the establishment L.P.A. No. 82 of 2019 amounts to running the establishment on the basis of the forged degree. Similarly, it is not disputed that even the Diploma in Medical Laboratory issued by Central Kolkata Medical and Technological Research Institute was not a recognised diploma in the eyes of law and accordingly, this was also a forged diploma. In accordance with Section 40(1) of the Act, we found that the penalty has been imposed in accordance with the law. The
second-order of appropriate legal action on forged degree and diploma in the practice of medicines cannot also be interfered with since the said order cannot contain any illegal activity. Similarly, the clinical establishment is not allowed to function without being duly registered in conformity with legislation in view of the explicit prohibition laid down by Section 11 of the Act, and the Appellant Authority stated that the establishment must be allowed to open after the fresh registration.
Therefore, there is no merit in this L.P.A. and the same is accordingly, dismissed. The Interlocutory Application for de-sealing the property also stands dismissed for the same reasons discussed above.
In order to fulfil the mandate of Article 47 of the Constitution on promotion of public health, the Clinical Establishment Act 2010 was adopted for registration and regulation. : Jharkhand High Court
