TCMC Re registartion

[madhu]

Dear friends,

Even after 9 months many of our members are mislead by some regarding
the re registration of TCMC.
Pl go thru the verdict of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in this regard.

Dr Madhu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C). No. 31277 of 2009(D)


1. QUALIFIED PRIVATE MEDICAL
PRACTITIONER'S ... Petitioner
2. DR. O. BABY, S/o. LATE M. KOCHUMMEN, AGED 65,
Vs
1. THE UNION OF
INDIA, ...
Respondent
2. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
4. THE REGISTRAR,


For Petitioner: SRI. S.
SREEKUMAR
For Respondent: SRI. T. P. M. IBRAHIM
KHAN, ASST. SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :12/01/2010
O R D E R
T. R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
W. P. (C) Nos. 31277/2009-D, 31654/2009-B, 34884/2009-E
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010.


JUDGMENT
These writ petitions raise a common issue and therefore they are
disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners in the three writ
petitions are medical practitioners except the first petitioner in W.P.
(C) No.31277/2009. The first petitioner in the said writ petition is
an association of qualified private medical practitioners. These
medical practitioners have acquired the qualifications from recognised
institutions in India. They are registered with the Travancore Cochin
Medical Council and have also entered their names in the Indian
Medical Register.

2. The challenge in the writ petitions is against the circular issued
by the Travancore Cochin Medical Council for renewal of registration
every five years. Various grounds have been raised in the writ
petitions in support of the challenge. The contention raised mainly is
that there is no power vested in the State Council to issue any
direction to any Medical practitioner to renew his registration in the
State.

3. In W. P. (C) No. 31277/2009 the 4th respondent Registrar of the
Travancore Cochin Medical Council has filed a counter affidavit.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the writ
petitions can be disposed of in the light of the averments contained
in the said counter affidavit. Ext. R4(d) produced therein is the copy
of the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Modern Medicine held
on 10.11.2009. Regarding the renewal of registration, they have taken
the following decision: "The council discussed in detail the notes
regarding renewal of registration and resolved to approve the same
with the modification that since the whereabouts of the practitioners
are not available with the Council it has became difficult for the
Council to take disciplinary action against violations of medical
ethics. After detailed discussion the Council resolved that in the
absence of statutory provisions for periodic renewal of Registration
every five years with the pre-condition of compulsory attendance of
CME, notice issued for renewal may be deferred and a fresh notice may
be issued calling for details from the practitioners to issue of
registration certificate with the same registration number and date of
registration, with photograph and security features, replacing the old
certificate and thereby update the registers, after bringing the above
aspect to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court."

4. It is averred in para 10 of the counter affidavit that considering
the absence of any statutory provisions to insist for periodical
renewal of registration, the Council for Modern Medicine has decided
not to insist for periodical renewal of registration and mandatory
attendance of CME programmes as a pre condition for such renewal.
Therefore, it is evident that the Council is of the view that in the
absence of statutory provisions providing for periodical renewal of
registration every five years, the notices now issued cannot be
sustained.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the
Council intends to issue fresh registration certificate and to update
the registers. For this purpose, they will be issuing public notice
and the petitioners and other medical practitioners will have to
respond to the same.

6. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of
recording the decision taken in Ext. R4 (d) that periodic renewal of
registration every five years is not being insisted as notified. The
Travancore Cochin Medical Council will take appropriate action to
implement Ext. R4 (d) decision to issue registration certificate with
the same registration number and date of registration with photograph
and security features, replacing the old certificate so as to update
the registers. Regarding the same, appropriate notices will be issued
for information of all the parties. No costs.

(T. R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/

For confirmation visit http://www.judis.nic.in/kerala/chejudis.asp