Facts in Brief

One Mr. Pramod Verma was treated for fever by Dr. Ashwin Patel, a homeopathic doctor. He used certain allopathic medicines, such as Inj. Diclofenac sodium, Tab. Ciprofloxacin 500 mg, Tab. Paracetamol, Tab. Diavol and Tab. B-complex. Even after nine days of treatment, the patient did not improve, and he was then taken to allopathic doctors, who also treated him; but the patient died on the tenth day. The widow of the deceased, Poonam Verma, filed a case against the doctor. The Judge did not proceed against the allopathic doctors, because they had practised their own system of medicine. The Judge declared that any doctor who practised and prescribed medicines about which he had not studied, and was not registered with the Council constituted by law, was a mere pretender to knowledge in that system, and was a quack. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Arguments

The Appellant sought to establish the liability of the doctor under: (a) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (b) the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; (c) the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965; and (d) the Bombay Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1960. It was argued that “Like Cures Like” is the basis of homeopathy, whereas allopathy is quite the opposite. Pharmacology, which is the study of allopathic drugs, is not taught to homeopathic students.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the words “Registered Homeopathic Practitioner” must be mentioned in every clinic of a homeopathic doctor. The appeal was accordingly upheld, and the Court fined the Respondent ₹3 lakhs, payable to the wife of the deceased. Further, the Medical Council of India was directed to punish the homeopathic doctor for violating the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In consequence thereof, the Respondent was sentenced to a period of three years.

For the Common Man

This judgment holds that “cross-practising” by doctors of different systems of medicine is illegal. Even allopathic doctors must not practise Ayurveda, and vice versa. If any doctor prescribes medicines on a subject which was not taught to him, he can be imprisoned by virtue of this case. However, this judgment seems to have been partially overruled by Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that a doctor is not liable unless gross negligence is proved against him.