Case Name: Hemica Rani Singh vs. National Medical Commission & Another
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3356/2022 and CM APPL. 9804/2022
Date: Reserved on 20 May 2024, Pronounced on 4 June 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, who completed her 10+2 education in India, sought to pursue a medical degree abroad. She enrolled in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) course at the Davao Medical School Foundation, Inc. (DMSFI) in the Philippines. The DMSFI course requires students to complete a Bachelor of Science (BS) course before proceeding to the MD program. In the Philippines, the education system requires students to complete a 10+4 system, where students finish ten years of school education followed by a four-year BS course before they can be admitted to the MD program. Indian students with a 10+2 background are required to undertake a BS course before enrolling in the MD program. The petitioner completed the requisite BS course in the Philippines before commencing her MD studies. As per the regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI), an Eligibility Certificate is mandatory for Indian students seeking to pursue medical education abroad. This certificate must be obtained prior to securing admission in a foreign medical institution. The petitioner did not obtain this certificate before joining the MD program at DMSFI. According to the Screening Test Regulations, Indian students who obtain their primary medical qualification (PMQ) from a foreign institution must qualify for the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) to practise medicine in India. An Eligibility Certificate, obtained before starting the foreign medical course, is a prerequisite for appearing in the FMGE. After completing her MD course, the petitioner applied for an Eligibility Certificate to appear for the FMGE. Her application was rejected by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the successor to the MCI, on the grounds that she did not obtain the Eligibility Certificate before joining the foreign medical institution as mandated by the regulations. The petitioner cited various judicial precedents to argue that obtaining the Eligibility Certificate after completing the MD course should be permissible. However, the NMC and subsequent court judgments emphasised that the Eligibility Certificate must be acquired before the commencement of the medical course abroad, as stipulated by the regulations and supported by several high court and Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief, arguing that the BS course in the Philippines is equivalent to the 10+2 system in India, and thus she should be allowed to obtain the Eligibility Certificate post facto. The court had to interpret the relevant regulations, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents to decide on the petitioner’s eligibility to appear for the FMGE without having obtained the Eligibility Certificate prior to her MD course.
ISSUES
- Whether the petitioner can obtain an Eligibility Certificate after completing her medical education abroad, despite not having obtained it prior to her admission as required by the Medical Council of India (MCI) regulations.
- Whether the Bachelor of Science (BS) course undertaken by the petitioner in the Philippines is considered equivalent to the 10+2 system of education in India, which may affect the requirement of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate before starting the MD course.
- Whether the petitioner can be permitted to sit for the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) without having fulfilled the prerequisite of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate prior to starting her medical education abroad.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act:
- This section stipulates that a citizen of India seeking admission to a medical institution abroad to obtain a Primary Medical Qualification (PMQ) must obtain an Eligibility Certificate issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) beforehand. It further states that failure to obtain this certificate renders the individual ineligible to appear for the screening test required for practising medicine in India.
Regulation 4(2) of the Screening Test Regulations:
- This regulation requires that individuals must have obtained the Eligibility Certificate from the MCI as per the Eligibility Regulations before being allowed to appear for the screening test. It emphasises that this certificate must be obtained prior to undertaking the medical course abroad.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Mr. Singhdev cites judgments to support his submissions, including those in Director, AIIMS v. Dr. Nikhil Tandon, Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association, and Sanjeev Gupta v. UOI, among others. These cases are referenced to bolster his arguments regarding the eligibility requirements for medical practitioners. Mr. Singhdev emphasises Regulation 3 of the Eligibility Regulations, particularly focusing on the phrase “or an equivalent examination from abroad.” He argues that without a certificate of equivalence, the petitioner cannot be considered eligible to enrol in the MD course in the Philippines. This contention highlights the importance of meeting specific eligibility criteria outlined in the regulations. Mr. Singhdev seeks to distinguish certain judgments cited by Mr. Naagar, arguing that they do not adequately address the issue of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate before undertaking the medical course abroad. By doing so, he aims to underscore the significance of adhering to the regulatory requirements set forth by the IMC Act and related regulations. In summary, Mr. Singhdev’s contentions revolve around the interpretation and application of relevant legal provisions and precedents to establish the petitioner’s eligibility status for practising medicine in India.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Naagar argues in rejoinder, referencing judgments such as Jishalakshi Embrandiri v. Medical Council of India and Ouwshitha Surendran v. National Medical Commission. He also cites specific portions of the case Shambhavi Sharma v. NBE. These references are made to support his counterarguments against Mr. Singhdev’s submissions. Mr. Naagar contests Mr. Singhdev’s position by pointing out the precedent set in Jishalakshi Embrandiri. He highlights the case’s consideration of a petitioner who had enrolled in an MBBS course abroad based on prevailing eligibility conditions. Mr. Naagar contends that this precedent supports the petitioner’s entitlement to enrol in the MS course without strict adherence to Indian MBBS admission criteria. Mr. Naagar presents further arguments, emphasising that Indian students studying abroad are not required to undergo the full four-year BS course in the Philippines. He cites FAQs from the Indian Embassy in the Philippines to support his contention that the BS course serves as an equivalent to the Indian 10+2 system. These contentions aim to challenge the strict interpretation of eligibility criteria put forth by Mr. Singhdev. In essence, Mr. Naagar’s contentions aim to refute Mr. Singhdev’s arguments by presenting alternative interpretations of relevant legal precedents and regulations, particularly regarding the eligibility requirements for medical education abroad.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court begins its analysis by addressing the issue of the eligibility certificate and its significance in the context of the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act and relevant regulations. It discusses the legal provisions, including Section 13(4B) of the IMC Act and Regulation 4(2) of the Screening Test Regulations, which stipulate the requirement of obtaining an eligibility certificate before undertaking a medical course abroad. The court examines various judicial precedents, including Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association, Ishan Kaul, and Rohinish Pathak, to establish the importance of obtaining the eligibility certificate before commencing medical studies abroad. It emphasises the necessity of adhering to the statutory provisions and precedents in determining eligibility for appearing in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE). The court also considers the implications of the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) practice of granting eligibility certificates to students who did not obtain them before joining medical courses abroad. It expresses concern about the divergence between this practice and the legal requirements outlined in the IMC Act and regulations. In its analysis, the court underscores the need for legislative or regulatory changes to address potential discrepancies and ensure consistency in the application of eligibility criteria for medical education abroad.
Based on its analysis of the legal provisions, judicial precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case, the court arrives at its conclusion. It states that the petitioner failed to obtain the eligibility certificate before joining the MD course, rendering her ineligible to appear in the FMGE or register as a medical practitioner in India. The court dismisses the writ petition, citing the petitioner’s non-compliance with the statutory requirements and the precedents established by higher courts. It refrains from addressing other submissions made during the proceedings, as they are deemed unnecessary in light of the primary issue of eligibility. The judgement was delivered on June 4, 2024, concluding the court’s deliberation on the matter and providing a final resolution to the legal dispute brought before it.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
