Supreme Court allows fresh inspection for Medical College: Madha Medical College vs. Union of India (2017)

Can a medical college be subjected to multiple inspections by the Medical Council of India (MCI)? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving Madha Medical College. The court allowed a fresh inspection, emphasizing the MCI’s role in maintaining standards in medical education. This case highlights the importance of infrastructure and faculty in medical colleges.

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Medical Council of India (MCI) can conduct multiple inspections of a medical college.

CASE TYPE: Medical Education Law

Case Name: Madha Medical College and Research Instt. vs. Union of India and Anr.

[Judgment Date]: September 12, 2017

Introduction

Citation: (2017) INSC 768

Judges: The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud. The judgment was authored by Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud.

This case involves a challenge to the Union government’s decision to debar Madha Medical College from admitting students. The college was barred for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The college also sought recognition under Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Additionally, the college wanted to participate in the counseling process for admissions to the MBBS program.

Case Background

Madha Medical College was initially granted recognition in 2011-12 to conduct the MBBS course with 150 students. The college received renewal of permission for admitting students in 2012-13 and 2013-14. However, they did not admit students in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

An assessment was conducted on March 18-19, 2016, to evaluate the college’s infrastructure and facilities for admitting students in 2016-17. The Medical Council of India (MCI) identified 39 deficiencies. These included a 52.2% deficiency in faculty, a 91.7% shortage of residents, and a bed occupancy of 54.76%. The student and resident hostels also had inadequate facilities.

The Executive Committee of MCI recommended to the Union government not to grant recognition to the college. The college was asked to rectify the deficiencies within two weeks. The college submitted its compliance on April 4, 2016. A subsequent assessment was conducted on April 22, 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Executive Committee of MCI decided to recommend to the Union government not to grant recognition. The college was asked to rectify the deficiencies. After the college submitted a compliance report, a verification was done on April 22, 2016. The team of assessors stated that the college resisted inspection. The college claimed that the assessment violated regulations prohibiting inspection around holidays.

The Executive Committee of MCI again decided to recommend to the Union government not to grant recognition or renewal for 2016-17. The Union government then informed the college not to admit students for 2016-17. The Oversight Committee then directed that the college be granted conditional recognition. This was subject to the college submitting an affidavit and a bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores. The Oversight Committee also directed that inspections be conducted after September 30, 2016. Colleges not complying with the deficiencies would be debarred for two years.

A compliance verification assessment was done on February 21, 2017. This assessment noted a deficiency of 4.54% in faculty and 2.35% in residents. However, a second inspection was conducted on March 22, 2017, following a complaint from students. This inspection found a 33.33% deficiency in faculty and 64.28% in residents. The Executive Committee of MCI recommended to the Union government not to grant recognition and to debar the college for 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Union government, after a hearing, debarred the college. The college then filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court, which was later withdrawn to approach the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (‘IMC Act’). This section deals with the recognition of medical qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in India.

Section 11(2) of the IMC Act states that:
“Any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have any such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such qualification to be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act.”

The Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999, also play a role. Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) states that inspections should not be conducted within two days before or after a religious or festival holiday.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that the MCI should not have conducted two inspections within a month. They also argued that the communications from the Union government were unreasoned. The petitioner stated that the second inspection’s findings on faculty and resident deficiencies were inconsistent with the first.

The petitioner explained that doctors and residents were at health camps. They also submitted salary slips for faculty and staff. Regarding bed occupancy, they argued that the first inspection found it adequate. The presence of school students was explained as being due to a food poisoning incident.

MCI argued that the second inspection was necessary due to a complaint from students. They stated that the college was portraying “ghost faculty/residents” and “fake patients” prior to the MCI assessment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the MCI could conduct a second inspection.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:

• IQ City Foundation v Union of India, Writ Petition (c) No.502 of 2017, Supreme Court of India. This case held that the MCI’s power should not be restricted. Even if the Central Government sends back a matter for compliance verification, the assessors can still look for other deficiencies.
• Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 10 SCC 60, Supreme Court of India.
• Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India, (2015) 10 SCC 191, Supreme Court of India.
• Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and Others v Union of India and another, Writ Petition (Civil) No 408 of 2017, Supreme Court of India.

The court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. This section deals with the recognition of medical qualifications.
• Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999. This regulation prohibits inspections around holidays.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining standards in medical education. The Court also highlighted the role of MCI as an expert statutory body. The need to protect public interest and ensure qualified medical professionals was a significant factor. The Court was not willing to restrict the powers of MCI, especially in cases where there were doubts about the genuineness of the college’s claims.

Logical Reasoning

The Court stated that it would be “manifestly contrary to public interest to restrict the powers of MCI to carry out a fresh inspection even though in its considered decision, such an inspection is necessary.” The Court also noted that, “The basic purpose of inspection is to verify whether the college possesses the wherewithal and resources to provide quality legal education consistent with the statutory regulations which hold the field.” The Court further stated, “The court will lean against any interpretation which will result in the foisting of under prepared medical professionals on society.”

The Court did not find any reason to interfere with the decisions of the Union government. However, the Court allowed the petitioner an opportunity to remove the deficiencies. The Court directed MCI to conduct a fresh inspection for the academic year 2018-19.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ MCI has the power to conduct multiple inspections of medical colleges.
• ✓ The primary goal of inspections is to ensure quality medical education.
• ✓ Medical colleges must maintain adequate infrastructure, faculty, and facilities.
• ✓ The Supreme Court will not interfere with the decisions of expert bodies like MCI.
• ✓ Colleges will be given a chance to rectify deficiencies.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

1. The case of the petitioner shall be duly considered by MCI and the Union government for the academic year 2018-19.
2. The bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores shall be kept alive.
3. MCI shall conduct a fresh inspection within two months.
4. MCI shall apprise the petitioner of the deficiencies and allow them to rectify the same.
5. The Central government shall take a final decision after affording a hearing to the petitioner.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Medical Council of India (MCI) has the power to conduct multiple inspections of medical colleges to ensure compliance with standards and regulations. This judgment reinforces the MCI’s role as a custodian of public interest in medical education and clarifies that its powers are not limited to a single inspection. This case does not overturn any previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the MCI’s authority to conduct multiple inspections. The Court allowed Madha Medical College an opportunity to rectify its deficiencies for the academic year 2018-19. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining standards in medical education.